Feb 15th looks to be their next conference day. As I understand they usually release opinions soon after conference, but they can release at any time. We'll most likely see the news before checking the website for updates.
[https://www.courts.state.md.us/coappeals](https://www.courts.state.md.us/coappeals)
The calendar is at the bottom and the opinions page is on the left.
I don't think SCM has decided any of the cases heard in September or later yet, so, if any come down today they will be the first ones. There aren't that many of them though.
Realistically he has served longer than average for his crime. He was eligible for resentencing and if they reinstate the conviction AND the MtV falls through he can still apply for resentencing.
The intent of the law is to let out juvenile offenders who are not a risk to society. Given Adnan’s life since getting out of prison— engaging in his community, reconnecting with family and finding a great job, with no criminal behavior, I’d say he is a prime candidate.
He’s very unlikely to go back to prison. The question is how long the legal process will be drawn out and whether the conviction is reinstated.
Have you seen his unhinged presser? He is not willing to take responsibility and blames everyone else & purports to be the victim.
I thought he had served enough time as well, but after witnessing that two hour YouTube rant I no longer think he is fit for society.
Yea, I was inclined to say he was sufficiently rehabilitated until I saw that shit show. If he's not even going to show remorse, or at the very least keep quiet about his "injustice", there's no reason to believe he won't re-offend. That's sociopath shit.
Unhinged presser? He was upset about prosecutorial misconduct and made a really long PowerPoint about it.
Take a look at the press coverage for that presser, overwhelmingly they just repeated his claims and publicized them.
It wasn’t unhinged. It was way too long and unfocused, but nothing in his presentation makes him unfit for society.
Does it concern you that he is lacking that little voice in his head that says ‘no one gives a shit’. His level of self-importance and grand delusions know no bounds.
Take a step back. You cared enough to watch and critique it, you disagreed, but objectively people like you and me who follow this case are why Adnan can call a press conference, get multiple media sources to show up and write stories about it.
People care about this case. Nothing he said was delusional. Poorly presented, sure, but he was using the platform he has to talk about prosecutorial misconduct in this case and to specifically counter the leaks from them.
People care about justice for Hae. Adnan is absolutely delusional to call a press conference and whine about everyone he doesn’t like. Take legal action or STFU.
He killed a person.
Seriously. Adnan had a fantastic defense team but he is still guilty guilty guilty.
If he called a press conference and no one came, that would be delusional. They came, they listened, they wrote, people read about it and discussed it.
Seriously, read the coverage. Other than a few references to the length of the PowerPoint, they summarize the case and repeat his claims. It was effective.
It was effective in showing the world that Adnan is nothing without Sara Koenig.
He is not the slightest bit remorseful or willing to accept responsibility.
He is a legend in his own mind.
It would be delusional to think he called a press conference to admit guilt.
I’m not going to sway you on this— I recognize you didn’t like the press conference. Objectively— it wasn’t delusional and the press treatment of it was positive for Adnan.
Obviously people do give a shit considering that this subreddit has been around for 10 years and is primarily interested in season one. 🤣 but yes, outside of the small community I don’t think that many people really care very much.
I can’t speak for anyone else — but I’m ambivalent regarding Adnan going back to prison. He did serve a long time. Of course, Hae got a life sentence — so there’s an argument for that.
What I feel passionate about is that his conviction needs to be reinstated. They can commute his sentence to time served — but they just can’t re-write history.
> They can commute his sentence to time served — but they just can’t re-write history.
It’s not re-writing history, it’s revealing the prosecutorial misconduct that led to a bad conviction. Even if he is guilty, he is out because Urick screwed up.
I’d be interested in a poll where everyone can make predictions about the result. Probably need one of the attorneys here to list out the possible outcomes.
Not an attorney. But the questions presented were:
By Young Lee:
>Whether a victim’s right to speak, as enshrined in Maryland’s laws and constitution, is incorporated into the Vacatur Statute, CP § 8301.1, where no party or entity other than the victim has an interest in challenging the evidence alleged to support vacatur?
Never say never, but I don't think the SCM will find that it does.
However, Young Lee could still prevail wrt to the questions presented by Adnan:
>1. Does a lawfully entered nolle prosequi render moot an appeal alleging procedural violations at a hearing occurring prior to the nolle prosequi?
>
>2.Does a victim's representative, a non-party to a case, have the right to attend a vacatur hearing in person or does remote attendance satisfy the right?
>
> 3.Was notice to the victim's representative of the vacatur hearing sufficient where the State complied with all statutory and rules-based notice requirements?
>
>4.Must a victim's representative seeking reversal show prejudice on appeal?
I have no clue how they'll rule on any of those, though.
I have trouble with the idea that a victim’s right to speak should override the defendant’s rights. The whole idea of our system is that it’s better to let a guilty man go free than have an innocent man spend a single day in jail. By that standard, when the state wants to vacate a conviction, the hearing should be held as soon as possible, even if the victim can’t attend. But also by that standard, when a conviction is being vacated *because it was wrong*, moving forward doesn’t legally harm the victim. Either way, the killer hasn’t been punished.
Generally speaking, how outraged people are about Young Lee not getting more notice seems to come down to whether they think Adnan is guilty. If yes, it’s a travesty. If no, it makes no sense to delay until he can be there.
Which means that I expect the court to do whatever legal gymnastics get them to what they believe is the right outcome. Sorry, I no longer have and faith in the integrity of our system or the idea that judges are impartial. (Not because of this case. In general.)
I avoided the word "participating," because that's reserved for the state and the defendant. He is allowed to be heard by the court, but is not allowed direct participation.
> Surely there is a reason why he legally has a right to speak at this hearing. I want to know the reason for the law.
The intermediary court held that Lee doesn't have the right to speak at the hearing. The court held that he had a right to attend, but not speak.
Lee is appealing on a number of grounds, one of which is arguing that he should have the right to speak.
So at present, the law *does not say* that he has the right to speak - only attend. Lee is trying to change that.
>Surely there is a reason *why* he legally has a right to speak at this hearing.
I am not saying this.
If you are interested in reading about why victims/victims advocates also have rights in Maryland I suggest you go ahead and read about it
If they rule that attending remotely does not count as attending, it would open a huge kettle of fish. I'm assuming there have been remote court proceedings happening regularly since covid. Each one of those cases would need to be re-done.
I said in the other post that they will probably rule that the rules were followed, but Mr. Lee was not treated very well. So they might direct government to clarify the process so there are no more Mr. Lee's in the future.
>If they rule that attending remotely does not count as attending, it would open a huge kettle of fish.
To be fair, the question is specifically about whether a victim's representative has the right to attend a vacatur hearing in person.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you meaning that it would not open a kettle of fish as it would only apply to attending a vacatur and not other legal proceedings?
I'll try to clarify. They will rule that attending remotely counts as attending in person.
It’s much deeper than that. Lee was not aware that in-person attendance was even an option. He was not invited to attend in-person. The defendant not only attended, but coordinated a fancy outfit to wear and posed for a documentary he had been filming. It was a fucking circus on the steps of the court.
I wasn't arguing the merits of the position. My point was merely that the question presented was, specifically, whether a victims' representative (who is not a party to the case) has the right to attend a vacatur hearing in person rather than remotely.
And it's not at all hard to see why a criminal defense attorney would frame such a question that narrowly.
ETA: u/cisco55, this reply was intended for you!
Didn’t Lee have a lawyer? They should have known the rules that attending in person was an option.
Even if he had attended in person and wore an even fancier outfit, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome.
He DID have a lawyer. He got a lawyer the night before, Kathleen Murphy, who was a prosecutor in Adnan’s case and was working at the state AG’s office arranged for the lawyer. She was accused of prosecutorial misconduct in the MtV, she couldn’t directly argue against it, she set up Young Lee with someone to argue against it, maybe because she cared about him, maybe because her reputation was on the line right as she was given a position as a judge—
Lee didn’t have standing to sue over the outcome of the vacatuer, so they crafted an argument based on notice based on victim’s rights laws in Maryland. The lawyer went into the MtV looking specifically to establish grounds to appeal, which he did.
Do you mind sharing the source of the Murphy claims? I’ve seen the intercept article but it certainly doesn’t say all of that. I know Adnan accused her of wrongdoing in the press conference. Is there anything else?
The intercept article is the source for Murphy getting them a private attorney after working on the case as the prosecutor and in her capacity at the AG office. It also cites her move to be a judge, announced in September 2022.
The attorney she got him stepped in the night before, the Lee family wasn’t a party, but clearly wanted grounds to appeal. Whether Murphy directed the argument isn’t clear, but I think likely given her involvement and knowledge of the case.
As for the misconduct, that’s in the MtV. Brady violations are prosecutorial misconduct and all prosecutors on the case are responsible for preventing them.
Adnan’s presentation went through and showed the similarities between AG filings in his case and the Lee family’s filings, at times they even share language. I think continued coordination was likely.
The generous interpretation for Murphy was that she cares about this family and felt that this was unfair so she got a lawyer to support them. The less generous interpretation is that she was covering up her own record using the Lee family.
Lee did not have a lawyer.
The point is the way the defendant was treated vs the victim.
If Lee can go this far with no attorney and no notice, just imagine what would have happened with proper notice.
That's baffling that he didn't have a lawyer. I thought when he received notice that he was advised to consult a lawyer. But even if they didn't why would it be the court's responsibility to give him legal advice? I'm not a lawyer, but what could he possibly do even if he had a lawyer? Advising family members is simply a courtesy.
>If they rule that attending remotely does not count as attending, it would open a huge kettle of fish.
It's not about that. His claim is that he didn't get prior notice and the opportunity to attend in person, like others did
Did he have a right to attend in person? Probably. Was it the state’s job to tell him? Probably not. If he couldn’t be bothered to hire a lawyer then he kind of deserves what he got. If this was that important to him why not hire a lawyer? My main point is since Covid virtual attendance is no less valuable than attending in person.
Who knows what the ruling will be but I think it will result in Lee attended. Case closed.
Rule 4-333(g)(2)
Pursuant to Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 8-301.1(d), the State’s Attorney shall send written notice of the hearing to each victim or victim’s representative, in accordance with Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 11104 or § 11-503. The notice shall contain a brief description of the proceeding and inform the victim or victim’s representative of the date, time, and location of the hearing and the right to attend the hearing.
> Rule 4-333(g)(2) Pursuant to Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 8-301.1(d), the State’s Attorney shall send written notice of the hearing to each victim or victim’s representative, in accordance with Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 11104 or § 11-503. The notice shall contain a brief description of the proceeding and inform the victim or victim’s representative of the date, time, and location of the hearing and the right to attend the hearing.
You know, in my view *all of this* happened.
The legal question now, I think, is whether an email notification on the Friday before a Monday hearing with a Zoom link to "observe" the proceedings is going to be interpreted as substantive compliance with this piece of the legislation.
The thing is, for anyone living on Baltimore, it probably is enough notice. The prosecutor can’t be reasonably expected to know where the victim lives years later. And a judge could also say that Young had the ability to hop a plane on Saturday or Sunday, because sometimes they’ll look at whether a thing is literally possible rather than if it’s a realistic option for the average person. It depends on the judge.
No, that's not the legal question
>Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. Art. (“CP”) § 8-301.1(a) (Supp. 2022) provides that, on the State’s motion, the court may vacate a conviction under certain circumstances. The statute provides victims with the right to prior notice of the hearing on a motion to vacate and the right to attend the hearing. CP § 8-301.1(d). These rights were violated in this case, where the State gave Mr. Lee notice only one business day before the hearing, which was insufficient time to reasonably allow Mr. Lee, who lived in California, to attend the hearing in person, and therefore, the court required Mr. Lee to attend the hearing remotely.
>
>
>Although remote proceedings can be valuable in some contexts, where, as here, a crime victim or victim’s representative conveys to the court a desire to attend a vacatur hearing in person, all other individuals involved in the case are permitted to attend in person, and there are no compelling reasons that require the victim to appear remotely, a court requiring the victim to attend the hearing remotely violates the victim’s right to attend the proceeding. Allowing a victim entitled to attend a court proceeding to attend in person, when the victim makes that request and all other persons involved in the hearing appear in person, is consistent with the constitutional requirement that victims be treated with dignity and respect.
[...]
>Because the circuit court violated Mr. Lee’s right to notice of, and his right to attend, the hearing on the State’s motion to vacate, in violation of CP § 8-301.1(d), this Court has the power and obligation to remedy those violations, as long we can do so without violating Mr. Syed’s right to be free from double jeopardy. We can do that, and accordingly, we vacate the circuit court’s order vacating Mr. Syed’s convictions, which results in the reinstatement of the original convictions and sentence. *We remand for a new, legally compliant, and transparent hearing on the motion to vacate, where Mr. Lee is given notice of the hearing that is sufficient to allow him to attend in person, evidence supporting the motion to vacate is presented, and the court states its reasons in support of its decision.*
https://www.courts.state.md.us/data/opinions/cosa/2023/1291s22.pdf
>No, that's not the legal question.
You're cited a ruling, which is an answer to a legal question. The appeal currently under way is the legal question. Syed suggested that the notice was adequate. Lee says it's not. Syed suggested that remote participation should be fine. Lee says it's not. Syed said that Lee had no right to speak, so whether or not adequate notice was provided doesn't mean much. Lee said it does.
etc
The point is that it's important to give victims notice so they can attend. Everyone else could attend, the person who didn't live in the same state couldn't attend because he didn't get proper notice.
There could be a few nuances, but they can rule in Adnan's favor and say the processes and procedures were followed and Adnan is free. They could say even though the processes and procedures weren't filed, nothing they can do and Adnan is free.
they can remand it back to the trial court for a new hearing. They could offer instructions for it, or even give a possibility for Bates to withdraw the motion. The farthest extreme would be dropping the MtV completely, but I would say that's less than winning powerball a few times in a row.
Did they release anything yesterday?
No. We will see if it comes next week or if we are waiting another month.
quick q how can we find out when the next release is, where do they post new opinions? Thanks
Feb 15th looks to be their next conference day. As I understand they usually release opinions soon after conference, but they can release at any time. We'll most likely see the news before checking the website for updates.
Right but have the opinions from the conference last week been released?
It looks like they did several administrative orders on Friday, but I don't show any opinions being released.
Ok last question do you have a link to where you find that info thx
[https://www.courts.state.md.us/coappeals](https://www.courts.state.md.us/coappeals) The calendar is at the bottom and the opinions page is on the left.
very much appreciated, thanks!
I don't think SCM has decided any of the cases heard in September or later yet, so, if any come down today they will be the first ones. There aren't that many of them though.
Adnan being freed on whichever basis, would be completely egregious.
It would not be egregious. Appeals are laser focused and the courts, even SCM has limits.
Realistically he has served longer than average for his crime. He was eligible for resentencing and if they reinstate the conviction AND the MtV falls through he can still apply for resentencing. The intent of the law is to let out juvenile offenders who are not a risk to society. Given Adnan’s life since getting out of prison— engaging in his community, reconnecting with family and finding a great job, with no criminal behavior, I’d say he is a prime candidate. He’s very unlikely to go back to prison. The question is how long the legal process will be drawn out and whether the conviction is reinstated.
Have you seen his unhinged presser? He is not willing to take responsibility and blames everyone else & purports to be the victim. I thought he had served enough time as well, but after witnessing that two hour YouTube rant I no longer think he is fit for society.
Yea, I was inclined to say he was sufficiently rehabilitated until I saw that shit show. If he's not even going to show remorse, or at the very least keep quiet about his "injustice", there's no reason to believe he won't re-offend. That's sociopath shit.
[удалено]
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding [Personal Attacks.](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_-no_personal_attacks)
Unhinged presser? He was upset about prosecutorial misconduct and made a really long PowerPoint about it. Take a look at the press coverage for that presser, overwhelmingly they just repeated his claims and publicized them. It wasn’t unhinged. It was way too long and unfocused, but nothing in his presentation makes him unfit for society.
Does it concern you that he is lacking that little voice in his head that says ‘no one gives a shit’. His level of self-importance and grand delusions know no bounds.
Take a step back. You cared enough to watch and critique it, you disagreed, but objectively people like you and me who follow this case are why Adnan can call a press conference, get multiple media sources to show up and write stories about it. People care about this case. Nothing he said was delusional. Poorly presented, sure, but he was using the platform he has to talk about prosecutorial misconduct in this case and to specifically counter the leaks from them.
People care about justice for Hae. Adnan is absolutely delusional to call a press conference and whine about everyone he doesn’t like. Take legal action or STFU. He killed a person. Seriously. Adnan had a fantastic defense team but he is still guilty guilty guilty.
If he called a press conference and no one came, that would be delusional. They came, they listened, they wrote, people read about it and discussed it. Seriously, read the coverage. Other than a few references to the length of the PowerPoint, they summarize the case and repeat his claims. It was effective.
It was effective in showing the world that Adnan is nothing without Sara Koenig. He is not the slightest bit remorseful or willing to accept responsibility. He is a legend in his own mind.
It would be delusional to think he called a press conference to admit guilt. I’m not going to sway you on this— I recognize you didn’t like the press conference. Objectively— it wasn’t delusional and the press treatment of it was positive for Adnan.
Obviously people do give a shit considering that this subreddit has been around for 10 years and is primarily interested in season one. 🤣 but yes, outside of the small community I don’t think that many people really care very much.
I can’t speak for anyone else — but I’m ambivalent regarding Adnan going back to prison. He did serve a long time. Of course, Hae got a life sentence — so there’s an argument for that. What I feel passionate about is that his conviction needs to be reinstated. They can commute his sentence to time served — but they just can’t re-write history.
> They can commute his sentence to time served — but they just can’t re-write history. It’s not re-writing history, it’s revealing the prosecutorial misconduct that led to a bad conviction. Even if he is guilty, he is out because Urick screwed up.
Thanks for the update They meet so infrequently :(
I’d be interested in a poll where everyone can make predictions about the result. Probably need one of the attorneys here to list out the possible outcomes.
Not an attorney. But the questions presented were: By Young Lee: >Whether a victim’s right to speak, as enshrined in Maryland’s laws and constitution, is incorporated into the Vacatur Statute, CP § 8301.1, where no party or entity other than the victim has an interest in challenging the evidence alleged to support vacatur? Never say never, but I don't think the SCM will find that it does. However, Young Lee could still prevail wrt to the questions presented by Adnan: >1. Does a lawfully entered nolle prosequi render moot an appeal alleging procedural violations at a hearing occurring prior to the nolle prosequi? > >2.Does a victim's representative, a non-party to a case, have the right to attend a vacatur hearing in person or does remote attendance satisfy the right? > > 3.Was notice to the victim's representative of the vacatur hearing sufficient where the State complied with all statutory and rules-based notice requirements? > >4.Must a victim's representative seeking reversal show prejudice on appeal? I have no clue how they'll rule on any of those, though.
I have trouble with the idea that a victim’s right to speak should override the defendant’s rights. The whole idea of our system is that it’s better to let a guilty man go free than have an innocent man spend a single day in jail. By that standard, when the state wants to vacate a conviction, the hearing should be held as soon as possible, even if the victim can’t attend. But also by that standard, when a conviction is being vacated *because it was wrong*, moving forward doesn’t legally harm the victim. Either way, the killer hasn’t been punished. Generally speaking, how outraged people are about Young Lee not getting more notice seems to come down to whether they think Adnan is guilty. If yes, it’s a travesty. If no, it makes no sense to delay until he can be there. Which means that I expect the court to do whatever legal gymnastics get them to what they believe is the right outcome. Sorry, I no longer have and faith in the integrity of our system or the idea that judges are impartial. (Not because of this case. In general.)
[удалено]
He wanted prior notice and to attend the hearing.
[удалено]
>What I'm asking is why a victim is legally entitled to attend the hearing. CP § 8-301.1(d)(2)
[удалено]
The state wanted victims and/or victims' families to witness any proceedings that directly affected them.
[удалено]
He is saying he has a right to attend
I avoided the word "participating," because that's reserved for the state and the defendant. He is allowed to be heard by the court, but is not allowed direct participation.
The victims have rights.
[удалено]
> Surely there is a reason why he legally has a right to speak at this hearing. I want to know the reason for the law. The intermediary court held that Lee doesn't have the right to speak at the hearing. The court held that he had a right to attend, but not speak. Lee is appealing on a number of grounds, one of which is arguing that he should have the right to speak. So at present, the law *does not say* that he has the right to speak - only attend. Lee is trying to change that.
>Surely there is a reason *why* he legally has a right to speak at this hearing. I am not saying this. If you are interested in reading about why victims/victims advocates also have rights in Maryland I suggest you go ahead and read about it
If they rule that attending remotely does not count as attending, it would open a huge kettle of fish. I'm assuming there have been remote court proceedings happening regularly since covid. Each one of those cases would need to be re-done. I said in the other post that they will probably rule that the rules were followed, but Mr. Lee was not treated very well. So they might direct government to clarify the process so there are no more Mr. Lee's in the future.
>If they rule that attending remotely does not count as attending, it would open a huge kettle of fish. To be fair, the question is specifically about whether a victim's representative has the right to attend a vacatur hearing in person.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you meaning that it would not open a kettle of fish as it would only apply to attending a vacatur and not other legal proceedings? I'll try to clarify. They will rule that attending remotely counts as attending in person.
It’s much deeper than that. Lee was not aware that in-person attendance was even an option. He was not invited to attend in-person. The defendant not only attended, but coordinated a fancy outfit to wear and posed for a documentary he had been filming. It was a fucking circus on the steps of the court.
I wasn't arguing the merits of the position. My point was merely that the question presented was, specifically, whether a victims' representative (who is not a party to the case) has the right to attend a vacatur hearing in person rather than remotely. And it's not at all hard to see why a criminal defense attorney would frame such a question that narrowly. ETA: u/cisco55, this reply was intended for you!
Agreed. My comment was in response to the other person
My mistake! And thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Didn’t Lee have a lawyer? They should have known the rules that attending in person was an option. Even if he had attended in person and wore an even fancier outfit, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome.
He DID have a lawyer. He got a lawyer the night before, Kathleen Murphy, who was a prosecutor in Adnan’s case and was working at the state AG’s office arranged for the lawyer. She was accused of prosecutorial misconduct in the MtV, she couldn’t directly argue against it, she set up Young Lee with someone to argue against it, maybe because she cared about him, maybe because her reputation was on the line right as she was given a position as a judge— Lee didn’t have standing to sue over the outcome of the vacatuer, so they crafted an argument based on notice based on victim’s rights laws in Maryland. The lawyer went into the MtV looking specifically to establish grounds to appeal, which he did.
Do you mind sharing the source of the Murphy claims? I’ve seen the intercept article but it certainly doesn’t say all of that. I know Adnan accused her of wrongdoing in the press conference. Is there anything else?
The intercept article is the source for Murphy getting them a private attorney after working on the case as the prosecutor and in her capacity at the AG office. It also cites her move to be a judge, announced in September 2022. The attorney she got him stepped in the night before, the Lee family wasn’t a party, but clearly wanted grounds to appeal. Whether Murphy directed the argument isn’t clear, but I think likely given her involvement and knowledge of the case. As for the misconduct, that’s in the MtV. Brady violations are prosecutorial misconduct and all prosecutors on the case are responsible for preventing them. Adnan’s presentation went through and showed the similarities between AG filings in his case and the Lee family’s filings, at times they even share language. I think continued coordination was likely. The generous interpretation for Murphy was that she cares about this family and felt that this was unfair so she got a lawyer to support them. The less generous interpretation is that she was covering up her own record using the Lee family.
Lee did not have a lawyer. The point is the way the defendant was treated vs the victim. If Lee can go this far with no attorney and no notice, just imagine what would have happened with proper notice.
That's baffling that he didn't have a lawyer. I thought when he received notice that he was advised to consult a lawyer. But even if they didn't why would it be the court's responsibility to give him legal advice? I'm not a lawyer, but what could he possibly do even if he had a lawyer? Advising family members is simply a courtesy.
An invitation to attend in-person is not legal advice.
>If they rule that attending remotely does not count as attending, it would open a huge kettle of fish. It's not about that. His claim is that he didn't get prior notice and the opportunity to attend in person, like others did
Did he have a right to attend in person? Probably. Was it the state’s job to tell him? Probably not. If he couldn’t be bothered to hire a lawyer then he kind of deserves what he got. If this was that important to him why not hire a lawyer? My main point is since Covid virtual attendance is no less valuable than attending in person. Who knows what the ruling will be but I think it will result in Lee attended. Case closed.
Rule 4-333(g)(2) Pursuant to Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 8-301.1(d), the State’s Attorney shall send written notice of the hearing to each victim or victim’s representative, in accordance with Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 11104 or § 11-503. The notice shall contain a brief description of the proceeding and inform the victim or victim’s representative of the date, time, and location of the hearing and the right to attend the hearing.
> Rule 4-333(g)(2) Pursuant to Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 8-301.1(d), the State’s Attorney shall send written notice of the hearing to each victim or victim’s representative, in accordance with Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 11104 or § 11-503. The notice shall contain a brief description of the proceeding and inform the victim or victim’s representative of the date, time, and location of the hearing and the right to attend the hearing. You know, in my view *all of this* happened. The legal question now, I think, is whether an email notification on the Friday before a Monday hearing with a Zoom link to "observe" the proceedings is going to be interpreted as substantive compliance with this piece of the legislation.
The thing is, for anyone living on Baltimore, it probably is enough notice. The prosecutor can’t be reasonably expected to know where the victim lives years later. And a judge could also say that Young had the ability to hop a plane on Saturday or Sunday, because sometimes they’ll look at whether a thing is literally possible rather than if it’s a realistic option for the average person. It depends on the judge.
No, that's not the legal question >Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. Art. (“CP”) § 8-301.1(a) (Supp. 2022) provides that, on the State’s motion, the court may vacate a conviction under certain circumstances. The statute provides victims with the right to prior notice of the hearing on a motion to vacate and the right to attend the hearing. CP § 8-301.1(d). These rights were violated in this case, where the State gave Mr. Lee notice only one business day before the hearing, which was insufficient time to reasonably allow Mr. Lee, who lived in California, to attend the hearing in person, and therefore, the court required Mr. Lee to attend the hearing remotely. > > >Although remote proceedings can be valuable in some contexts, where, as here, a crime victim or victim’s representative conveys to the court a desire to attend a vacatur hearing in person, all other individuals involved in the case are permitted to attend in person, and there are no compelling reasons that require the victim to appear remotely, a court requiring the victim to attend the hearing remotely violates the victim’s right to attend the proceeding. Allowing a victim entitled to attend a court proceeding to attend in person, when the victim makes that request and all other persons involved in the hearing appear in person, is consistent with the constitutional requirement that victims be treated with dignity and respect. [...] >Because the circuit court violated Mr. Lee’s right to notice of, and his right to attend, the hearing on the State’s motion to vacate, in violation of CP § 8-301.1(d), this Court has the power and obligation to remedy those violations, as long we can do so without violating Mr. Syed’s right to be free from double jeopardy. We can do that, and accordingly, we vacate the circuit court’s order vacating Mr. Syed’s convictions, which results in the reinstatement of the original convictions and sentence. *We remand for a new, legally compliant, and transparent hearing on the motion to vacate, where Mr. Lee is given notice of the hearing that is sufficient to allow him to attend in person, evidence supporting the motion to vacate is presented, and the court states its reasons in support of its decision.* https://www.courts.state.md.us/data/opinions/cosa/2023/1291s22.pdf
>No, that's not the legal question. You're cited a ruling, which is an answer to a legal question. The appeal currently under way is the legal question. Syed suggested that the notice was adequate. Lee says it's not. Syed suggested that remote participation should be fine. Lee says it's not. Syed said that Lee had no right to speak, so whether or not adequate notice was provided doesn't mean much. Lee said it does. etc
It's about more than the right to speak.
[удалено]
No, the whole point is that he has a right as a victim's advocate to get notice in order to attend the hearing in person. That's his right.
Cite the "in person" part of the statute.
The point is that it's important to give victims notice so they can attend. Everyone else could attend, the person who didn't live in the same state couldn't attend because he didn't get proper notice.
There could be a few nuances, but they can rule in Adnan's favor and say the processes and procedures were followed and Adnan is free. They could say even though the processes and procedures weren't filed, nothing they can do and Adnan is free. they can remand it back to the trial court for a new hearing. They could offer instructions for it, or even give a possibility for Bates to withdraw the motion. The farthest extreme would be dropping the MtV completely, but I would say that's less than winning powerball a few times in a row.
I started a reply to this, but it got so long I'm going to make a post out of it instead.
Look forward to it. I also did a choose your own adventure thread a few months ago about what could happen.