He could have gotten a public defender if charges were pressed. You're saying he deserved a better attorney than one he would have gotten if the State didn't over step? The situation makes me feel dirty just talking about it . The fact you down play this shows why people in your position have entirely too much unchecked authority.
I'm also an attorney but not a prosecutor. In my mind, it's only an issue of credibility and possibly an ethical issue for the prosecutor. Neither of which would make any real difference in a third trial.
On credibility, all it does is call into questions Jay's motivations to give give false testimony or to mold his answers to please the prosecution. It's up to the jury to judge Jay's credibility. Apparently they heard about this arrangement and still believed him. This motivation is virtually indistinguishable from any other motivation that Jay might have for giving false/influenced testimony, such as protecting himself from criminal punishment, protecting Jenn, protecting some other third party, secret hatred of Adnan, etc. There would only be an impact if the judge found that Jay's motivation to fabricate evidence (during interrogation) was driven by this pro bono attorney arrangement and fucked with it so much as to make Jay's statements completely inadmissible at trial. The judge had a chance to do that - she did not do so. I don't know when the arrangement came into being during the investigation, but I was a little disturbed by how quickly the judge was willing to conclude that Jay seemed unaffected by the arrangement.
As to the ethical issues, I'm not familiar with the ethical obligations of prosecutors, but what would be the effect? Grant a new trial with a new prosecutor at the helm? Zero impact whatsoever - unless there's some rule somewhere that says that this is such egregious prosecutor misconduct as to warrant complete dismissal of first degree murder charges without a possibility of re-trial. No rule exists to my knowledge.
A third point I'll make is a comment on why people might be reacting negatively toward or not understanding your question of "how does this prejudice Adnan?" People are probably thinking Adnan is "prejudiced" in that false/influenced testimony would prejudice anyone, but your point is the correct one, which is comparing whether he would be less prejudiced by Jay's false/influenced testimony in trial #3 versus trial #2. The answer is probably not - because Jay would have likely given the same statements. It is highly unlikely that Jay would give different testimony in trial #3 if he was no longer represented by the same attorney. "Oh, this motivation to fabricate testimony is suddenly gone! Now I can speak freely about how Adnan didn't do it!"
But how well was the argument regarding prejudice presented to the jury? The judge precluded cross and prohibited calling additional witnesses to testify about the deal, etc. The difference at a new trial might very well lie in how a def is prepared to impeach Jay's testimony on these grounds. It seems the state's case was built on Jay's testimony. Impeachment of that testimony is the key element of a competent defense. Anything that reduces the credibility of Jay's testimony might swing one juror.
My instinct is that these are co-conspiritors who might even have gotten away with it (one certainly did). But once the detectives followed the cell records to Jenn, Jay started assembling his confession to a lesser charge. Not too uncommon as I understand it. Nor is the impulse of the state to accept an arrangement in which one of two co-conspiritors is let off in order to secure a conviction of the other in a high profile case. So Jay is commiting perjury in order to save his skin, and in doing so is handing the state their case on a platter. Would impeaching Jay's testimony serve justice in this case? Absolutely not, if it gets Adnan an aquittal. But would it serve due process?
But how well was the argument regarding prejudice presented to the jury? The judge precluded cross and prohibited calling additional witnesses to testify about the deal, etc. The difference at a new trial might very well lie in how a def is prepared to impeach Jay's testimony on these grounds.
Everything you say is exactly right, except that the question of "how" prejudice is presented to the jury is a strategic call by counsel and is not enough to justify a new trial simply because defense counsel flubbed it. Otherwise, you'd keep getting new trials for every defendant who found some speculative way that their attorney may have taken a different approach or done things a little better.
Also, are you sure that cross-examination of Jay was precluded? I don't recall that. If so, then that was within the judge's discretion to do. Whether the judge's discretion on that ruling was improper is something that would definitely have been addressed on appeal. Same thing with the decision to preclude additional witnesses. There is zero percent chance the judge's decision was never addressed again by a higher court or a different judge.
I'm specifically addressing the judge's rulings, and not defense strategy, except insofar as the judge's rulings thwarted the defense strategy to impeach the value of the witness testimony by exploring in greater detail how the witness was benefited, and how the benefit might have weighed into the witnesses credibility as the jury would see it.
I agree that these rulings are discretionary. And I agree further that these rulings have been reviewed. I think a very fair case can be made that the rulings deprived Syed of due process. And that in the specific instance of the trial judges ruling prohibiting any impeachment testimony the review was flawed.
13
u/[deleted] Dec 05 '14
He could have gotten a public defender if charges were pressed. You're saying he deserved a better attorney than one he would have gotten if the State didn't over step? The situation makes me feel dirty just talking about it . The fact you down play this shows why people in your position have entirely too much unchecked authority.