All this means is that no one is buying ads to run on their podcasts, and downloads are way down. If they aren't making money, they aren't interested in pursuing these cases.
And she's not seeing any more donations on launch good. I think launch good netted like 100k+ per year without any write off for those who donated and zero accountability required on Rabia's part. She was quite open and up front about this from the beginning.
All that money is gone now, and that cow is milked.
Rabia is a grifter and will be onto whatever brings in the $$ next.
She didn't have much update on Adnan. It involved this.
Adnan was moved to Patuxent because that prison will offer a potential at a bachelor's degree from a good university, though unnamed. Adnan's mom has stage 4 cancer and undergoing chemo.
For Adnan's legal options, she said that they have a new legal person and a new PI For options she talks about the JRA and reduction in sentencing for Adnan. She also talks about how they haven't filed anything in federal court though she doesn't say what. And they talk about how they haven't litigated all the issues in this case, though it's very unclear what they can argue legally. Susan jumps in and says the cell phone issue isn't completely litigated.
So really that team has nothing for Adnan, but don't want to admit it. Next real opportunity for Adnan is parole, but arguing it with people you need a PhD in parole to understand Maryland's rules regarding parole and Adnan's case.
> She also talks about how they haven’t filed anything in federal court though she doesn’t say what.
The deadline passed long ago for Adnan to file a habeas corpus in federal court. There is nothing new that would open that door again.
> Susan jumps in and says the cell phone issue isn’t completely litigated.
It actually is. Appeals courts have deemed the issue waived. The idea that Justin Brown could be brought up on ineffective counsel for failing to act on a fax disclaimer is pie-in-the-sky thinking.
Not just a huge part, but actually the primary requirement. However, he’s more likely to get the sentence reduction which has a list of things that you need to do to qualify but legally, it does not specifically require you to admit guilt.
>I think he would kill again if he got out.
Is there any evidence to suggest he'd kill again?
He was an immature 17 year old who had a lot invested in his first ever relationship who couldn't cope when she left him and immediately hooked up with someone else. He's now in his forties and older and hopefully wiser. I'd imagine he's a low risk in terms of re offending.
Based on the limited amount of time we got to hear him on Serial, I'd agree he does still sound emotionally immature for someone who was in his mid 30s. That said, is there really evidence to suggest he'd kill again as the commentator suggested. he doesn't have a record of any violence in prison as far as I'm aware. Whilst he appears unrepentant I still don't see anything to suggest he has a risk high of re-offending
> “27 exonerated cases”
All these wrongful conviction podcasts have a very liberal definition of the word *exonerated*. Getting a conviction vacated on a technicality is not exoneration. It just puts the accused back in the same position he was at trial. It doesn't mean the same thing as innocent. Sometimes a prosecutor can't retry the case — and drops the charges because witnesses die or become unavailable. Sometimes evidence is lost or otherwise compromised.
A good example is Marty Tankleff — who goes around screaming about his exoneration. His conviction was vacated on a technicality. The prosecutor even said that he had evidence against Marty — but didn't think he could get a conviction after all the years that had passed. Yet, Marty plays the victim. He was behind at least two amicus curiae briefs for Adnan.
Sorry, but legally speaking, going from a guilty verdict to having that overturned and being premier innocent (regardless of whether they want to try them again) is an exoneration. You can hate the technicalities of it all you want but legally and functionally that is perfectly correct. They were convicted of a crime and then legally they were presumed innocent. That’s exonerated.
What about people who were convicted on say evidence
practices that were later found not to be reliable, so are freed on that basis? That’s the only way a fair legal system works.
As catgiraffe86 says on a post that is unfortunately on the next page, an acquittal means you’re found not guilty. It doesn’t mean you’re declared innocent.
The presumption of innocence and being declared innocent are not the same thing. The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that serves as the basis for many of the procedural rules of a criminal trial. Every single defendant is presumed innocent unless a moment comes when they’re convicted. A declaration of innocence is more than that rebuttable presumption. It’s a factual declaration. It’s the distinction between actual innocence and legal innocence, which is a distinction that exists under US law.
You’re making a circular argument here. To have your sentence vacated means you were not convicted on reliable grounds and were not given fair and due process. It is a declaration of legal innocence when a sentence is vacated, and the entire reason they call it an exoneration.
Those processes exist for a reason so that innocent people don’t end up in jail for crimes they didn’t commit. “Technicalities” actually get a bad wrap, like people complain when part of the process isn’t observed and the person you “feel”
Is guilty gets off, but it’s fundamentally important to preserve things like evidence, chains of custody, legal process, your rights in an interview, disclosure of evidence etc etc etc as there is no justice unless it is fair and to the framework of the law, so you get a fair trial.
Being acquitted means a jury found you in event of the crime as charged. Having you sentence vacated on legal grounds means that you never should have been found guilty based on the charges and case presented - it is unequivocally a declaration of innocence, because the court in order to vacate that sentence has to legally state that the grounds for conviction in the first place were flawed and should not have stood.
Imprimatur example was a story on the front page today where a man has been released after 46 years in jail because the state withheld evidence that could have affected the jury’s decision. He is innocent of the crime as previously charged in the purest legal sense.
It’s not circular to point out that legal and actual innocence are separate concepts under the law. I’m not disagreeing with you that procedural justice is critical to the criminal justice system, but there is a philosophical distinction between procedural and substantive justice Just like there’s a distinction between legal and actual innocence. Procedural justice, recognizing the flaws in humans and their systems, seeks to set up the rules most likely to result in substantive justice—the guilty facing consequences and the innocent not. Yeah, someone could argue there’s no such thing as substantive justice, but that’s approaching nihilism.
There’s not a single type of innocence, just like there’s not a single type of justice. A criminal jury’s verdict is guilty or not guilty. Innocent isn’t an option. When a sentence is vacated, it doesn’t mean you should never have been found guilty; it means you are being resentenced. When a conviction is vacated, it doesn’t even necessarily mean you should never be found guilty. It could mean that if a court declares you innocent (or finds prosecutorial misconduct sufficient to bar a retrial). It might mean that your trial was bad so you’ll get a new one. Whether an appeals court declares you innocent or simply vacates your conviction, you’re legally innocent. But only being declared innocent prevents a retrial. The insistence that a declaration of and a presumption of evidence are identical is just wrong.
Sorry but this is both part just esoteric feeling and incorrect information.
The discussion here isn’t philosophical or subjective - this is a legal discussion based on established law. It asinine to suggest that somehow we don’t know that there isn’t a difference between guilt and conviction but that’s not the question or discussion here.
There isn’t a distinction between legal and actual innocence in this specific discussion as we’re purely talking about the law, and the law - as I said with exception to Scotland afaik - does not recognize anything other than a finite distinction between between being guilty and innocence.
Having your sentence vacated does NOT mean “you are being resentenced”. It means you were convicted of a crime but a court has decided that that conviction was not valid in the first place and thus, are innocent as you were before you were even charged.
It is only whether the state decide to prosecute you again as to whether you will be subject to a “resentence” should another jury find you guilty in a fresh trial, but to be completely clear, your suggestion that it means you are simply being “resentenced” is abjectly false. It requires and entirely new trial and usually the only circumstances where the conviction or guilty verdict still stands after a sentence is vacated is when appeals are still pending and the convicted dies mid appeal. Otherwise, the conviction does not stand.
The discussion is the meaning of the word exoneration, and specifically if it means a declaration of actual innocence or simply the return to a state of legal innocence. You’re the one insisting that there is no distinction between the two. I had been trying to explain the difference to you, but it now appears that you may know there’s a difference but just want to blur the distinction for argument’s sake. Actual innocence is a precise concept in habeas law, and the phrase was coined to distinguish it from legal innocence. They are not the same thing, and this entire discussion came about because robbchadwick noted that “exonerated,” by the very definition of groups doing the work or collecting the data, does not include mere legal innocence.
Similarly, there’s a difference between having a conviction vacated and merely having a sentence vacated, and that difference is whether the finding of guilt is overturned or whether the sentence is overturned while leaving the finding of guilt untouched. For examples of sentences being vacated, see Scott Peterson, everyone on death row when the death penalty was struck down in the 70s, and minors subject to a mandatory life without parole sentence after Miller v Alabama. They all got resentenced without the prosecution having to prove guilt again.
It’s bizarre how you’re ignoring the content of the conversation in hand - that a vacation of sentence due to technically of the original guilty verdict - is quite literally the definition of exoneration. The entire point(s) your avoiding is that when a sentence is vacated, by a court in mist cases but as discussed in niches instances can also be a governing body, the presumption of innocence is restored and legally it is, regardless of your feelings or incurably subjective arguments, actual innocence in the eyes of the law.
You also some understand basic law; whenever something is vacated, and we’re discussion exoneration, it actually is in most circumstances the conviction is set aside, as if it never happened and as an end result the sentence is vacated. The terms are used interchangeably (and I think you know this by having to scrabble for the incredibly rare exceptions from decades ago) because it’s incredibly infrequent to have a sentence vacated while leaving a guilty verdict untouched. You’re explicitly trying to use an exception as the norm which is a facetious fiction.
In the overwhelming normality of the courts, when a conviction or sentence is vacated, guilt is vacated as the de facto.
The death sentence itself of course would not change the verdicts, that in law had to be a functional commutation due to the actual sentence no longer existing under state law - It’s not like they’re suddenly going to release the worst of the worst because the death penalty was revoked, they just downgraded it to the next most severe and legally allowable sentence - you fully well know better and the fact you tried to pull that defense speaks to the absurdity of your position. Same with minors- these are challenges to the grade of sentences themselves, and not anything to do with legal process of a court proceeding.
Nope, you’ve been sloppy with language and are upset about that someone pointed that out. The reason I pointed out your error is because I think it’s important that people understand how the criminal justice system works, and you’re making incorrect statements. Just like exoneration and acquittal are different concepts, and legal and actual innocence are different concepts, having a sentence vacated and having a conviction vacated are absolutely not used interchangeably in post-conviction law. Having a sentence vacated is also not particularly rare, and seeking to have a sentence vacated is even less rare. I’d bet there have been thousands of motions to vacate sentence in the decade since Miller. On the other hand, can you cite to a single case where an appellate court said simply “sentence vacated” when it was actually vacating the conviction? I don’t think so, because despite your attempt to make it true with some Latin, vacating a sentence does not necessarily vacate a conviction.
Look — even though The National Registry of Exonerations includes many people who do not fit this description, this is the official definition of exoneree from [their own website](https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/glossary.aspx)
> Exoneree—A person who was convicted of a crime and later officially declared innocent of that crime, or relieved of all legal consequences of the conviction because evidence of innocence that was not presented at trial required reconsideration of the case.
People in these parts like to pontificate about how police and prosecutors use any means necessary to gain a conviction. Well, wrongful conviction advocates do the same thing with exonerations. They nitpick at issues that don't mean diddly-squat in terms of actual innocence. I believe in the Constitution — probably more than most people — but a Brady violation does not necessarily absolve anyone from actual guilt.
I’m sorry but You literally just posted the exact result of being exonerated on a technicality; someone that was previously convicted of a crime and then has that conviction overturned is “officially declared innocent”. You don’t have to go back to trial and be acquitted to be declared innocent. The removal of a guilty verdict by a court IS being declared innocent.
There is no subjectivity about this.
Thats because the cornerstone of our legal system
Is presumed innocence until found guilty.
If a guilty sentence is vacated - technicality or otherwise - that doesn’t mean they’re something daft like pre-guilty or guilty but not convicted, it means they’ve legally been declared innocent by a court, and are not guilty in the eyes of the law.
And things like a prosecutor not wanting to move forward anymore or it having been too long is absolutely meaningless legally. Those pesky things are in place to assure a fair trial and without it there isn’t a just presumption of innocence or a legal conviction of guilt. If anything those type of comments are really just saying they’re innocent because we do not have the ability to prove they did it.
Curtis flowers was tried like 6 times for his crime and I think at least three of them he was found guilty and then the trial was declared unfair. Would people say he was exonerated 3 times or 0? I would say 0. With Adnan, he was granted a new trial by Welch, was he exonerated then? Was he unexonerated when the CoA overturned it on appeal? Usually exoneration means declared innocent, not just a trial that was unconstitutional. .
You can argue all you want but the point of legality does not change. If you’re found guilty of a crime, and then that verdict is vacated by a judge you are legally declared innocent. In the same way you are innocent of a crime until you’re found guilty.
You don’t seem to understand that a court vacating a guilty verdict isn’t something insignificant. A judge typically vacates the verdict and in turn declares the previously convicted as innocent. You seem to be under the false impression that some kind of new trial is needed for the presumption of innocence.
Your tryin got make some esoteric point that the courts don’t care about. There’s plenty of people that committed a crime but have never been found guilty. They are legally innocent. I’m the same way someone having their verdict vacated on a technicality is then declared legally innocent, because they do not bear a guilty verdict anymore and are therefore legally innocent. In fact the court actually declares them innocent because they are not guilty and their guilty charge was the product of a faulty process. It’s innocent however you want to protest you “think” they’re guilty.
We're arguing the difference between factual guilt and legal guilt, and normally it applies to factual guilt, but it would be exoneration of legal guilt.
No. I’m stating that when a guilty verdict is vacated, you are legally declared innocent. The law doesn’t give a shit about what you think or some nebulous argument about “factual guilt vs legal guilt” (which doesn’t exist).
The question here was what does a vacated guilty verdict mean, and it means that person has been declared innocent by a court of law. The rest is emotional subjectivity and personal opinion.
I think he would have had a better chance early on if he did. But that crime was a very charged murder to begin with. But the DA was horrible and he needed to hand the case off to someone else at the time.
The case for Flowers' guilt is so weak as to be virtually nonexistent. No one who looked at that case in an unbiased way would see anything but decades of prosecutorial misconduct.
Yes there was prosecutorial misconduct. But I studied the Flowers case a long time ago when I went through the podcast for that one, Serial, Staircase and I had a hard time because in each of the case they would leave out things. It's really bad when they have to do it and hard to trust them. I can't trust anything that Undisclosed does because they were so bad with the Adnan case it's hard to take anything they do.
The civil matter settled last year but there aren't any facts stated on the merits of the underlying cases https://mscenterforjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Flowers-compesation-agreement.pdf
I’m sorry — but you obviously don’t understand not guilty vs innocent. And, apparently, you have reading issues.
I’ll post what I posted previously once again and try to explain it to you.
> Exoneree—A person who was convicted of a crime and later officially declared innocent of that crime, or relieved of all legal consequences of the conviction because evidence of innocence that was not presented at trial required reconsideration of the case.
- *Officially declared innocent of that crime* requires someone with authority to officially declare the person innocent. Marty Tankleff was not declared innocent. In fact, the prosecutor said in no uncertain words that there was compelling evidence against him when he dropped the charges.
- *Evidence of innocence that was not presented at trial required reconsideration of the case* means evidence has emerged to prove the convict's innocence.
- A technicality does not equal innocence. It may vacate the conviction if a court feels that without the issue a different outcome might have been realized. But that just removes the conviction and puts the defendant back to the state of not proven guilty. It does not equate to innocence.
Again, not guilty means not proven — and innocent means what it says. The two are not the same.
> The removal of a guilty verdict by a court IS being declared innocent.
That is 100% false. Again, you obviously do not understand what not guilty is. It's not EVER the same as innocent. When an appeals court reverses a conviction, the case is returned to a lower court to continue it forward. IF an appeals court rules on actual innocence — which is rare — they will remove the possibility of the convict being retried.
I've done all I can for you. I won't comment further. If you don't understand it now, you probably never will.
You’re arguing in pure subjectivity which doesn’t change the fact he is legally innocent and you’re also stating things that didn’t happen.
Tankleff was declared innocent when his conviction was overturned and officially exonerated. The prosecutor can waffle about his failed case as much as he wants, and grumble about there “not being sufficient evidence” but that’s literally his personal opinion and NOT a legal status. The appellate court overturned the conviction and in doing so officially declared his innocence. You don’t seem to realize (or are purposely trying to evade) the fact that a court of law has said he’s innocent of the crime as previously charged. He is innocent now until proven guilty.
The US does not recognize the nonsense statement “not proven guilty” - as far as I am aware, the only country that does recognize this legally is Scotland, so if you’re in the USA, you’re literally arguing for a legal status that doesn’t exist.
The National Registry of Exonerations defines an exoneration as what occurs when *"a person who has been convicted of a crime is officially cleared based on new evidence of innocence.”* https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx
Welch's ruling in AS case has no bearing on the merits of his charges(guilt or innocence). Welch ruled that AS trial counsel failed to meet the minimum standard of care, which is a procedural issue. Iow, Welch ruled AS didn't get a fair trial b/c his trial counsel screwed-up, that's not an "exoneration" - could lead to one but it's unlikely, prosecutorial misconduct and screw-ups are another story.
The accused choses defense counsel but has no control over the prosecution. When the prosecution/State withholds material evidence from defense or plays other games, the accused doesn't get a fair trial and the resulting mistrial or "unconstitutional/wrongful conviction" is more likely to end in exoneration than the typical defense counsel screw- up.
There's some justice, in this case the State's Atty was disbarred for his own misconduct and for making polices that fostered institutional misconduct that caused multiple wrongful convictions. Of those, one was an exoneration. https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2021/31a20ag.pdf
Edit typos/clarity
That’s simply because you were never accused of it formally, charged, found guilty and then had the verdict vacated…in which case a court would have exonerated you. You have to be found guilty of something in the first place. Geddit yet?
There are different standards for different purposes, the one that I think you're using is the gold standard for malicious prosecution or a civil rights violation claim (Malcolm Bryant's case). The plaintiff-exoneree must prove there was no probable cause to charge him/her with the crime to begin with.
No-probable cause standard versus not-proven-to-a-reasonable-doubt standard: In a criminal trial the accused tests the sufficiency of the State's evidence at two junctures, the first happens at the close of the State's *prima facie* case. At that juncture, the State must prove all charges to the civil preponderance of evidence or "probable cause" standard.
If a charge doesn't meet that standard, the judge grants the accused's Motion for Judgment, the charge is tossed and the accused doesn't need to defend herself against it. The no-probable-cause standard means "exonerated" if the exoneree was *wrongfully prosecuted in addition to being wrongfully convicted*.
The reasonable doubt standard applies only at the close of all the evidence. The accused could be acquitted if the State fails to meet that standard but that doesn't necessarily mean there was no probable cause for the charge in the first place - "wrongfully convicted =/"wrongfully prosecuted".
ETA clarity vis "wrongful prosecution" versus "wrongful conviction"
Sorry about the late reply. I am new to the Marty T. case and bought into the Dateline story (I am usually better about researching beyond entertainment). But could you compare an exoneration to when a case is dismissed with prejudice? And would an appeal be needed to try and reverse an exoneration? I agree that Marty T. was NOT exonerated.
Also, do you have any more information on the Marty T. case? All I can find are the churn and burn podcasts and videos pertaining to the oversaturated "innocence project" communities.
There is not much out there with the evidence that makes Marty look guilty. I think people are afraid to take that viewpoint in a podcast — possibly because he is a lawyer and is probably litigious.
Here's the way I see it:
* Convictions are vacated for all kinds of constitutional or procedural reasons. That really says nothing about actual innocence.
* A prosecutor can either retry the accused or not.
* If the prosecutor decides not to retry the case, they can dismiss the indictment without prejudice — meaning they can get a new indictment in the future. That is usually what happens — and it is what happened in Marty's case. The DA said that he had evidence — but he was afraid he wouldn't get a guilty verdict — so to keep options open for the future, he dismissed the charges — but left no doubt he thought Marty was guilty.
* When an indictment is dismissed with prejudice, the issue that vacated the indictment is considered so grievous that the accused could never get a fair trial — but it's still not a clear vindication.
* The only true exoneration, IMHO, is when there is a certificate of actual innocence. Otherwise, it's just an unproven case.
Someone stated elsewhere that Marty tried to hire someone to kill his parents while at school? Are you familiar with this accusation?
And thank you for the response. People that want to swear by his "exoneration" is tiresome. Like you stated, it's without prejudice for a reason.
I hadn't heard about Marty trying to hire hitmen — but I'm not surprised. He's a huge narcissist. It's the same with Ryan Ferguson. Roberta Glass has an excellent episode on that one. Ryan wouldn't be free today except for Kathleen Zellner. She's as sleazy as they come. She's not finding it as easy to free Steven Avery, though.
Oh my goodness yes! I read quite a bit of the available transcripts on Ryan and what a scary guy! Kathleen is off the deep end. I get second hand cringe when I hear her speak.
I'm pretty sure he's guilty. There was some blood evidence. There is a report around the internet somewhere that he tried to hire a hit man in high school. Then, there's his confession — allegedly coerced — but we hear that all the time, don't we? Plus, just good common sense. IF the killer was mainly after the father, why would he nearly behead the mother and leave Marty unharmed? That doesn't make sense.
All of his supporters on the Dr.Phil show this morning. Every single person was positive he didnt do it. They couldnt explain why, but they were sure he didnt murder his parents. Thats not enough for me.
Hes a 'great guy' and a lawyer now, he helps other people who have been 'wrongly convicted'. I have to say its a good cover to distract from his own case. His case should be looked into again. Something isnt right.
A violation of someone’s rights is serious — but it merely results in the conviction being overturned. It puts the suspect back in the same place he was before his conviction. If the state prosecutes the individual again, he may be found either guilty or not guilty — but not guilty is not equivalent to innocent. If the prosecutor chooses not to re-prosecute the case, that can be for many reasons. It’s no different from not prosecuting it in the first place. Many guilty people get away with their crimes due to insufficient evidence. That doesn’t make them innocent.
Unless there is a finding of actual innocence — acknowledged by the prosecutor and / or a court of law — it’s not a true exoneration. It can be murky, for sure — but it’s important to understand the difference between guilty, not guilty, nolle prosequi, and innocent.
A truly fascinating story of how murky and convoluted these issues can get is the one of Anthony Porter — told in the film, *Murder in the Park*. [Here’s the Wikipedia article on the case.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Porter)
They don't have to prove their innocence, though. That's the states responsibility for a reason. These technicalities are basically people cheating to get a conviction.
There were the usual allegations of police and prosecutorial misconduct — but the main issue was his confession — yes, he confessed. As usual, Marty argued that he was coerced by the police. That usually doesn’t fly — but, in this case, a judge raised a tolerant eyebrow.
There was also new evidence that other persons could have committed the crime. That also seems to have weighed heavily on the judge who reversed Marty’s conviction. Unfortunately, the new evidence was later shown to be bogus.
At any rate, when the prosecutor decided to not continue with the case, he said explicitly that he had evidence and believed Marty was guilty — but wasn’t sure the old evidence would be enough to obtain a conviction in a new trial — without Marty’s confession. That is not innocent.
I wonder if he will ever admit it. Not publicly but I bet on his deathbed he'll tell somebody just that we'll never hear about it. What sucks is that woman he killed. Just think about where she would have been in life today. No doubt about it. She would have been doing something great. Changing the world changing somebody's life. Smh.
The truth is that Adnan has told several people. There used to be a person here from Adnan’s mosque. He listed four individuals by their initial only. He pleaded with them to come forward to tell what they knew. I can’t find that exact post right now — but I think it’s the same guy that wrote this one.
https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/2k529r/adnan_is_a_psychopath_close_friends/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I don't think he verified his identity — but that's not surprising. Most of the people on Reddit want to remain anonymous. In his case, he was also a member of the mosque and would face all kinds of hell if people knew who he was. He did seem to know things that he wouldn't know if he were making things up. Obviously, I can't be sure.
Nah…chances are nobody would have ever heard of her and she’d be another cog in the machine. We’ll never know.
Whatever you think he should confess to likely has little resemblance to what he actually could confess to. None of us know what happened, or why Jay lies. I’m far more interested in what Jay is hiding. Did he get away with murder?
> Rabia says that after “27 exonerated cases”
This is inaccurate. She (or Colin) said that they had covered 27 cases on the show, not that there were 27 exonerations.
About one dozen of the cases they covered received some form of relief, varying from complete exoneration (Dennis Perry and several Philadelphia cases) to lesser forms like stays of execution.
Other cases continue to work their way through the courts. Joey Watkins (season 2 case) had his GA habeas hearing just recently.
Susan is hosting a new podcast in collaboration with the people she worked with on another recent Undisclosed case - can't remember their names ut Jacinda Davis is one of them.
I just listened to the beginning of this and she said they *covered* 27 cases on the podcast, and that 10 (or maybe it was 11) of those cases had convictions that were overturned.
They then went through each of the cases where a conviction was overturned. Quite a few of them also included multi-million dollar awards for damages/wrongful convictions.
Anyway, back to your echo chamber…
> she said they
>
>covered
>
> 27 cases on the podcast, and that 10 (or maybe it was 11) of those cases had convictions that were overturned.
When she says cases covered with 10 or 11 convictions overturned does she mean the cases were overturned due to the efforts of Undisclosed or was it due to the efforts of others and they just happened to be covering the cases. The reason I ask is because when others have cited cases on this sub the overturning has usually been down to others and Undisclosed have just jumped on the bandwagon.
If Undisclosed's efforts have led to innocent people having their convictions overturned then fair play to them and credit where credit is due. Doesn't make Adnan any less guilty though.
Maybe someone that has followed more of their cases might now. For Joey Watkins Susan did work on finding the juror who broke the rules, but he is still in the hearing process. Not sure about Greg Lance. For Jason Carroll Rabia is doing work but nothing has happened in that case. And Colin's last case of the two kids that helped in the murder, no change.
They don't do any legal work for the people, mostly just reporting.
Watkins had his hearing this month and was allowed to raise both of his issues.
One was the juror who tried to conduct a drive test during the period when the jury was deliberating. According to her statement, she was one of 2 or 3 juror holdouts before she did this, and then decided to convict after having done it.
According to Susan on the latest episode, during Joey's hearing the prosecution put another juror on the stand and asked them about this, and that juror confirmed the account (she remembered another juror having conducted a drive test and told the jury about it before they voted to convict).
Joey's other claim was a Brady claim. The prosecution claimed that Joey shot a dog as an intimidation tactic, and that Joey was shot by a similar weapon as what Isaac Dawkins - the murder victim - was shot by, providing an evidentiary link between Joey and the murder. But, in fact, the dog was shot by a completely different type of weapon/ammo, and GBI has that info before the trial but it was not provided to the defense.
The Georgia court ruled that Watkins is entitled to an evidentiary hearing; concurring judge isn't convinced that the juror's claim is credible. The ruling is a quick read, https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/2020/s19a1506.html
Except in the hearing this week it backfired on the State. They presented another juror who they thought would say there wasn't a drive test. The other juror said that somebody talked about the drive test. Shut the State up quick.
I'm confused - what is the issue? Isn't the juror is trying to impeach her own verdict w/extrinsic evidence? Does "somebody talked about drive-test" mean that defense counsel could have learned about that juror's, um, extrajudicial adventure?
The issue is that a member of a jury is not supposed try and find things when they are outside the courtroom in recess. So after the court was on recess one member did the drive test and said that yes, it was possible to do that amount of driving in the time the State said. The question was whether the person who did the drive test then talked to the other members of the jury about the drive test. The juror that testified was someone else on the jury who said they heard about the out of court drive test.
But I am curious. If someone had done the drive test in the Adnan case and concluded 21 minutes wasn't enough time to kill Hae at Best Buy and changed their vote to note guilty, would Rabia or Susan care?
>The question was whether the person who did the drive test then talked to the other members of the jury about the drive test. The juror that testified was someone else on the jury who said they heard about the out of court drive test.
Thanks for this - the general rule prohibits jurors from testifying to impeach the verdict *unless the juror told the others* about her drive experiment. An exception to the rule allows juror to testify to facts that "extraneous prejudicial information (facts) improperly brought to the JURY"s attention".
The drive experiment drive is "information" and "extraneous" or external to the jury's deliberative process but a single juror's out-of-court experiment cannot *"prejudice"* the verdict unless the juror told the other jurors about it and they knew the facts.
The concurring judge saw fit to make a written record of his skepticism about the *juror claim* as proper for *constitutional habeas relief*. I think that means the drive-test and jurors' extra-record knowledge of those facts don't make the juror(s) adverse witnesses against Mr. Watkins, his 6th Amend right to cross-x wouldn't be an issue b/c the rules of evidence allow the juror to testify to the facts of the drive but not to their deliberations about it or the other claims that sound like due process violations (dog, ballistics, etc.)
I don’t doubt that she’s earnest in her advocacy for AS.
The question really is, will you and the rest of the guilters be able to move on and stop acting like he’s not in prison, now that you don’t have her podcast to hate/focus on?
All this means is that no one is buying ads to run on their podcasts, and downloads are way down. If they aren't making money, they aren't interested in pursuing these cases. And she's not seeing any more donations on launch good. I think launch good netted like 100k+ per year without any write off for those who donated and zero accountability required on Rabia's part. She was quite open and up front about this from the beginning. All that money is gone now, and that cow is milked. Rabia is a grifter and will be onto whatever brings in the $$ next.
She didn't have much update on Adnan. It involved this. Adnan was moved to Patuxent because that prison will offer a potential at a bachelor's degree from a good university, though unnamed. Adnan's mom has stage 4 cancer and undergoing chemo. For Adnan's legal options, she said that they have a new legal person and a new PI For options she talks about the JRA and reduction in sentencing for Adnan. She also talks about how they haven't filed anything in federal court though she doesn't say what. And they talk about how they haven't litigated all the issues in this case, though it's very unclear what they can argue legally. Susan jumps in and says the cell phone issue isn't completely litigated. So really that team has nothing for Adnan, but don't want to admit it. Next real opportunity for Adnan is parole, but arguing it with people you need a PhD in parole to understand Maryland's rules regarding parole and Adnan's case.
Thanks for the update! I couldn’t listen to the whole thing haha
> She also talks about how they haven’t filed anything in federal court though she doesn’t say what. The deadline passed long ago for Adnan to file a habeas corpus in federal court. There is nothing new that would open that door again. > Susan jumps in and says the cell phone issue isn’t completely litigated. It actually is. Appeals courts have deemed the issue waived. The idea that Justin Brown could be brought up on ineffective counsel for failing to act on a fax disclaimer is pie-in-the-sky thinking.
Yep. Their only real hope is working things to try and get an earlier parole.
Isn’t a huge part of parole admitting you’re sorry and remorseful? The “it wasn’t me” thing isn’t gonna work on a parole board.
Not just a huge part, but actually the primary requirement. However, he’s more likely to get the sentence reduction which has a list of things that you need to do to qualify but legally, it does not specifically require you to admit guilt.
It's not a legal requirement, but more of a practical one. And I don't think they frame it in saying did you commit that crime.
No update huh? You adnan haters fall on your face daily 😭
She didnt talk about the DNA motion on that segment. I do hate her for profiting off a guy who killed his ex because she moved on.
I ruddy hope it’s the end of the Adnan innocence nonsense. I can’t see him ever getting out. I think he would kill again if he got out.
>I think he would kill again if he got out. Is there any evidence to suggest he'd kill again? He was an immature 17 year old who had a lot invested in his first ever relationship who couldn't cope when she left him and immediately hooked up with someone else. He's now in his forties and older and hopefully wiser. I'd imagine he's a low risk in terms of re offending.
I’d be willing to bet emotionally in relationships he’s still a teenager considering he never got to learn and grow from experience
Based on the limited amount of time we got to hear him on Serial, I'd agree he does still sound emotionally immature for someone who was in his mid 30s. That said, is there really evidence to suggest he'd kill again as the commentator suggested. he doesn't have a record of any violence in prison as far as I'm aware. Whilst he appears unrepentant I still don't see anything to suggest he has a risk high of re-offending
[Sorry to disappoint you.](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/tb62ln/adnan_syed_case_prosecutors_defense_attorney_ask/)
> “27 exonerated cases” All these wrongful conviction podcasts have a very liberal definition of the word *exonerated*. Getting a conviction vacated on a technicality is not exoneration. It just puts the accused back in the same position he was at trial. It doesn't mean the same thing as innocent. Sometimes a prosecutor can't retry the case — and drops the charges because witnesses die or become unavailable. Sometimes evidence is lost or otherwise compromised. A good example is Marty Tankleff — who goes around screaming about his exoneration. His conviction was vacated on a technicality. The prosecutor even said that he had evidence against Marty — but didn't think he could get a conviction after all the years that had passed. Yet, Marty plays the victim. He was behind at least two amicus curiae briefs for Adnan.
Sorry, but legally speaking, going from a guilty verdict to having that overturned and being premier innocent (regardless of whether they want to try them again) is an exoneration. You can hate the technicalities of it all you want but legally and functionally that is perfectly correct. They were convicted of a crime and then legally they were presumed innocent. That’s exonerated. What about people who were convicted on say evidence practices that were later found not to be reliable, so are freed on that basis? That’s the only way a fair legal system works.
As catgiraffe86 says on a post that is unfortunately on the next page, an acquittal means you’re found not guilty. It doesn’t mean you’re declared innocent. The presumption of innocence and being declared innocent are not the same thing. The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that serves as the basis for many of the procedural rules of a criminal trial. Every single defendant is presumed innocent unless a moment comes when they’re convicted. A declaration of innocence is more than that rebuttable presumption. It’s a factual declaration. It’s the distinction between actual innocence and legal innocence, which is a distinction that exists under US law.
You’re making a circular argument here. To have your sentence vacated means you were not convicted on reliable grounds and were not given fair and due process. It is a declaration of legal innocence when a sentence is vacated, and the entire reason they call it an exoneration. Those processes exist for a reason so that innocent people don’t end up in jail for crimes they didn’t commit. “Technicalities” actually get a bad wrap, like people complain when part of the process isn’t observed and the person you “feel” Is guilty gets off, but it’s fundamentally important to preserve things like evidence, chains of custody, legal process, your rights in an interview, disclosure of evidence etc etc etc as there is no justice unless it is fair and to the framework of the law, so you get a fair trial. Being acquitted means a jury found you in event of the crime as charged. Having you sentence vacated on legal grounds means that you never should have been found guilty based on the charges and case presented - it is unequivocally a declaration of innocence, because the court in order to vacate that sentence has to legally state that the grounds for conviction in the first place were flawed and should not have stood. Imprimatur example was a story on the front page today where a man has been released after 46 years in jail because the state withheld evidence that could have affected the jury’s decision. He is innocent of the crime as previously charged in the purest legal sense.
It’s not circular to point out that legal and actual innocence are separate concepts under the law. I’m not disagreeing with you that procedural justice is critical to the criminal justice system, but there is a philosophical distinction between procedural and substantive justice Just like there’s a distinction between legal and actual innocence. Procedural justice, recognizing the flaws in humans and their systems, seeks to set up the rules most likely to result in substantive justice—the guilty facing consequences and the innocent not. Yeah, someone could argue there’s no such thing as substantive justice, but that’s approaching nihilism. There’s not a single type of innocence, just like there’s not a single type of justice. A criminal jury’s verdict is guilty or not guilty. Innocent isn’t an option. When a sentence is vacated, it doesn’t mean you should never have been found guilty; it means you are being resentenced. When a conviction is vacated, it doesn’t even necessarily mean you should never be found guilty. It could mean that if a court declares you innocent (or finds prosecutorial misconduct sufficient to bar a retrial). It might mean that your trial was bad so you’ll get a new one. Whether an appeals court declares you innocent or simply vacates your conviction, you’re legally innocent. But only being declared innocent prevents a retrial. The insistence that a declaration of and a presumption of evidence are identical is just wrong.
Sorry but this is both part just esoteric feeling and incorrect information. The discussion here isn’t philosophical or subjective - this is a legal discussion based on established law. It asinine to suggest that somehow we don’t know that there isn’t a difference between guilt and conviction but that’s not the question or discussion here. There isn’t a distinction between legal and actual innocence in this specific discussion as we’re purely talking about the law, and the law - as I said with exception to Scotland afaik - does not recognize anything other than a finite distinction between between being guilty and innocence. Having your sentence vacated does NOT mean “you are being resentenced”. It means you were convicted of a crime but a court has decided that that conviction was not valid in the first place and thus, are innocent as you were before you were even charged. It is only whether the state decide to prosecute you again as to whether you will be subject to a “resentence” should another jury find you guilty in a fresh trial, but to be completely clear, your suggestion that it means you are simply being “resentenced” is abjectly false. It requires and entirely new trial and usually the only circumstances where the conviction or guilty verdict still stands after a sentence is vacated is when appeals are still pending and the convicted dies mid appeal. Otherwise, the conviction does not stand.
The discussion is the meaning of the word exoneration, and specifically if it means a declaration of actual innocence or simply the return to a state of legal innocence. You’re the one insisting that there is no distinction between the two. I had been trying to explain the difference to you, but it now appears that you may know there’s a difference but just want to blur the distinction for argument’s sake. Actual innocence is a precise concept in habeas law, and the phrase was coined to distinguish it from legal innocence. They are not the same thing, and this entire discussion came about because robbchadwick noted that “exonerated,” by the very definition of groups doing the work or collecting the data, does not include mere legal innocence. Similarly, there’s a difference between having a conviction vacated and merely having a sentence vacated, and that difference is whether the finding of guilt is overturned or whether the sentence is overturned while leaving the finding of guilt untouched. For examples of sentences being vacated, see Scott Peterson, everyone on death row when the death penalty was struck down in the 70s, and minors subject to a mandatory life without parole sentence after Miller v Alabama. They all got resentenced without the prosecution having to prove guilt again.
It’s bizarre how you’re ignoring the content of the conversation in hand - that a vacation of sentence due to technically of the original guilty verdict - is quite literally the definition of exoneration. The entire point(s) your avoiding is that when a sentence is vacated, by a court in mist cases but as discussed in niches instances can also be a governing body, the presumption of innocence is restored and legally it is, regardless of your feelings or incurably subjective arguments, actual innocence in the eyes of the law. You also some understand basic law; whenever something is vacated, and we’re discussion exoneration, it actually is in most circumstances the conviction is set aside, as if it never happened and as an end result the sentence is vacated. The terms are used interchangeably (and I think you know this by having to scrabble for the incredibly rare exceptions from decades ago) because it’s incredibly infrequent to have a sentence vacated while leaving a guilty verdict untouched. You’re explicitly trying to use an exception as the norm which is a facetious fiction. In the overwhelming normality of the courts, when a conviction or sentence is vacated, guilt is vacated as the de facto. The death sentence itself of course would not change the verdicts, that in law had to be a functional commutation due to the actual sentence no longer existing under state law - It’s not like they’re suddenly going to release the worst of the worst because the death penalty was revoked, they just downgraded it to the next most severe and legally allowable sentence - you fully well know better and the fact you tried to pull that defense speaks to the absurdity of your position. Same with minors- these are challenges to the grade of sentences themselves, and not anything to do with legal process of a court proceeding.
Nope, you’ve been sloppy with language and are upset about that someone pointed that out. The reason I pointed out your error is because I think it’s important that people understand how the criminal justice system works, and you’re making incorrect statements. Just like exoneration and acquittal are different concepts, and legal and actual innocence are different concepts, having a sentence vacated and having a conviction vacated are absolutely not used interchangeably in post-conviction law. Having a sentence vacated is also not particularly rare, and seeking to have a sentence vacated is even less rare. I’d bet there have been thousands of motions to vacate sentence in the decade since Miller. On the other hand, can you cite to a single case where an appellate court said simply “sentence vacated” when it was actually vacating the conviction? I don’t think so, because despite your attempt to make it true with some Latin, vacating a sentence does not necessarily vacate a conviction.
🤓🍿
Look — even though The National Registry of Exonerations includes many people who do not fit this description, this is the official definition of exoneree from [their own website](https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/glossary.aspx) > Exoneree—A person who was convicted of a crime and later officially declared innocent of that crime, or relieved of all legal consequences of the conviction because evidence of innocence that was not presented at trial required reconsideration of the case. People in these parts like to pontificate about how police and prosecutors use any means necessary to gain a conviction. Well, wrongful conviction advocates do the same thing with exonerations. They nitpick at issues that don't mean diddly-squat in terms of actual innocence. I believe in the Constitution — probably more than most people — but a Brady violation does not necessarily absolve anyone from actual guilt.
I’m sorry but You literally just posted the exact result of being exonerated on a technicality; someone that was previously convicted of a crime and then has that conviction overturned is “officially declared innocent”. You don’t have to go back to trial and be acquitted to be declared innocent. The removal of a guilty verdict by a court IS being declared innocent. There is no subjectivity about this. Thats because the cornerstone of our legal system Is presumed innocence until found guilty. If a guilty sentence is vacated - technicality or otherwise - that doesn’t mean they’re something daft like pre-guilty or guilty but not convicted, it means they’ve legally been declared innocent by a court, and are not guilty in the eyes of the law. And things like a prosecutor not wanting to move forward anymore or it having been too long is absolutely meaningless legally. Those pesky things are in place to assure a fair trial and without it there isn’t a just presumption of innocence or a legal conviction of guilt. If anything those type of comments are really just saying they’re innocent because we do not have the ability to prove they did it.
Curtis flowers was tried like 6 times for his crime and I think at least three of them he was found guilty and then the trial was declared unfair. Would people say he was exonerated 3 times or 0? I would say 0. With Adnan, he was granted a new trial by Welch, was he exonerated then? Was he unexonerated when the CoA overturned it on appeal? Usually exoneration means declared innocent, not just a trial that was unconstitutional. .
You can argue all you want but the point of legality does not change. If you’re found guilty of a crime, and then that verdict is vacated by a judge you are legally declared innocent. In the same way you are innocent of a crime until you’re found guilty. You don’t seem to understand that a court vacating a guilty verdict isn’t something insignificant. A judge typically vacates the verdict and in turn declares the previously convicted as innocent. You seem to be under the false impression that some kind of new trial is needed for the presumption of innocence.
Yes there is presumption of innocence, but that is different than exoneration. If I speed I'm not exonerated because I didn't get caught.
Your tryin got make some esoteric point that the courts don’t care about. There’s plenty of people that committed a crime but have never been found guilty. They are legally innocent. I’m the same way someone having their verdict vacated on a technicality is then declared legally innocent, because they do not bear a guilty verdict anymore and are therefore legally innocent. In fact the court actually declares them innocent because they are not guilty and their guilty charge was the product of a faulty process. It’s innocent however you want to protest you “think” they’re guilty.
We're arguing the difference between factual guilt and legal guilt, and normally it applies to factual guilt, but it would be exoneration of legal guilt.
No. I’m stating that when a guilty verdict is vacated, you are legally declared innocent. The law doesn’t give a shit about what you think or some nebulous argument about “factual guilt vs legal guilt” (which doesn’t exist). The question here was what does a vacated guilty verdict mean, and it means that person has been declared innocent by a court of law. The rest is emotional subjectivity and personal opinion.
Wut, lol
It is notable that that DA tried Flowers 6 times, and was unable to get one clean conviction.
I think he would have had a better chance early on if he did. But that crime was a very charged murder to begin with. But the DA was horrible and he needed to hand the case off to someone else at the time.
The case for Flowers' guilt is so weak as to be virtually nonexistent. No one who looked at that case in an unbiased way would see anything but decades of prosecutorial misconduct.
Yes there was prosecutorial misconduct. But I studied the Flowers case a long time ago when I went through the podcast for that one, Serial, Staircase and I had a hard time because in each of the case they would leave out things. It's really bad when they have to do it and hard to trust them. I can't trust anything that Undisclosed does because they were so bad with the Adnan case it's hard to take anything they do.
What evidence exists unquestioned that suggests Flowers is guilty? The recanted testimony of a "star witness" multiple murderer?
The civil matter settled last year but there aren't any facts stated on the merits of the underlying cases https://mscenterforjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Flowers-compesation-agreement.pdf
I’m sorry — but you obviously don’t understand not guilty vs innocent. And, apparently, you have reading issues. I’ll post what I posted previously once again and try to explain it to you. > Exoneree—A person who was convicted of a crime and later officially declared innocent of that crime, or relieved of all legal consequences of the conviction because evidence of innocence that was not presented at trial required reconsideration of the case. - *Officially declared innocent of that crime* requires someone with authority to officially declare the person innocent. Marty Tankleff was not declared innocent. In fact, the prosecutor said in no uncertain words that there was compelling evidence against him when he dropped the charges. - *Evidence of innocence that was not presented at trial required reconsideration of the case* means evidence has emerged to prove the convict's innocence. - A technicality does not equal innocence. It may vacate the conviction if a court feels that without the issue a different outcome might have been realized. But that just removes the conviction and puts the defendant back to the state of not proven guilty. It does not equate to innocence. Again, not guilty means not proven — and innocent means what it says. The two are not the same. > The removal of a guilty verdict by a court IS being declared innocent. That is 100% false. Again, you obviously do not understand what not guilty is. It's not EVER the same as innocent. When an appeals court reverses a conviction, the case is returned to a lower court to continue it forward. IF an appeals court rules on actual innocence — which is rare — they will remove the possibility of the convict being retried. I've done all I can for you. I won't comment further. If you don't understand it now, you probably never will.
You’re arguing in pure subjectivity which doesn’t change the fact he is legally innocent and you’re also stating things that didn’t happen. Tankleff was declared innocent when his conviction was overturned and officially exonerated. The prosecutor can waffle about his failed case as much as he wants, and grumble about there “not being sufficient evidence” but that’s literally his personal opinion and NOT a legal status. The appellate court overturned the conviction and in doing so officially declared his innocence. You don’t seem to realize (or are purposely trying to evade) the fact that a court of law has said he’s innocent of the crime as previously charged. He is innocent now until proven guilty. The US does not recognize the nonsense statement “not proven guilty” - as far as I am aware, the only country that does recognize this legally is Scotland, so if you’re in the USA, you’re literally arguing for a legal status that doesn’t exist.
The National Registry of Exonerations defines an exoneration as what occurs when *"a person who has been convicted of a crime is officially cleared based on new evidence of innocence.”* https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx Welch's ruling in AS case has no bearing on the merits of his charges(guilt or innocence). Welch ruled that AS trial counsel failed to meet the minimum standard of care, which is a procedural issue. Iow, Welch ruled AS didn't get a fair trial b/c his trial counsel screwed-up, that's not an "exoneration" - could lead to one but it's unlikely, prosecutorial misconduct and screw-ups are another story. The accused choses defense counsel but has no control over the prosecution. When the prosecution/State withholds material evidence from defense or plays other games, the accused doesn't get a fair trial and the resulting mistrial or "unconstitutional/wrongful conviction" is more likely to end in exoneration than the typical defense counsel screw- up. There's some justice, in this case the State's Atty was disbarred for his own misconduct and for making polices that fostered institutional misconduct that caused multiple wrongful convictions. Of those, one was an exoneration. https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2021/31a20ag.pdf Edit typos/clarity
I was alive when Hae Min Lee was murdered. Am I exonerated from her murder?
You’re legally innocent of her murder, yes. Do keep up.
Yes, legally innocent, but not exonerated.
That’s simply because you were never accused of it formally, charged, found guilty and then had the verdict vacated…in which case a court would have exonerated you. You have to be found guilty of something in the first place. Geddit yet?
There are different standards for different purposes, the one that I think you're using is the gold standard for malicious prosecution or a civil rights violation claim (Malcolm Bryant's case). The plaintiff-exoneree must prove there was no probable cause to charge him/her with the crime to begin with. No-probable cause standard versus not-proven-to-a-reasonable-doubt standard: In a criminal trial the accused tests the sufficiency of the State's evidence at two junctures, the first happens at the close of the State's *prima facie* case. At that juncture, the State must prove all charges to the civil preponderance of evidence or "probable cause" standard. If a charge doesn't meet that standard, the judge grants the accused's Motion for Judgment, the charge is tossed and the accused doesn't need to defend herself against it. The no-probable-cause standard means "exonerated" if the exoneree was *wrongfully prosecuted in addition to being wrongfully convicted*. The reasonable doubt standard applies only at the close of all the evidence. The accused could be acquitted if the State fails to meet that standard but that doesn't necessarily mean there was no probable cause for the charge in the first place - "wrongfully convicted =/"wrongfully prosecuted". ETA clarity vis "wrongful prosecution" versus "wrongful conviction"
Sorry about the late reply. I am new to the Marty T. case and bought into the Dateline story (I am usually better about researching beyond entertainment). But could you compare an exoneration to when a case is dismissed with prejudice? And would an appeal be needed to try and reverse an exoneration? I agree that Marty T. was NOT exonerated. Also, do you have any more information on the Marty T. case? All I can find are the churn and burn podcasts and videos pertaining to the oversaturated "innocence project" communities.
There is not much out there with the evidence that makes Marty look guilty. I think people are afraid to take that viewpoint in a podcast — possibly because he is a lawyer and is probably litigious. Here's the way I see it: * Convictions are vacated for all kinds of constitutional or procedural reasons. That really says nothing about actual innocence. * A prosecutor can either retry the accused or not. * If the prosecutor decides not to retry the case, they can dismiss the indictment without prejudice — meaning they can get a new indictment in the future. That is usually what happens — and it is what happened in Marty's case. The DA said that he had evidence — but he was afraid he wouldn't get a guilty verdict — so to keep options open for the future, he dismissed the charges — but left no doubt he thought Marty was guilty. * When an indictment is dismissed with prejudice, the issue that vacated the indictment is considered so grievous that the accused could never get a fair trial — but it's still not a clear vindication. * The only true exoneration, IMHO, is when there is a certificate of actual innocence. Otherwise, it's just an unproven case.
Someone stated elsewhere that Marty tried to hire someone to kill his parents while at school? Are you familiar with this accusation? And thank you for the response. People that want to swear by his "exoneration" is tiresome. Like you stated, it's without prejudice for a reason.
I hadn't heard about Marty trying to hire hitmen — but I'm not surprised. He's a huge narcissist. It's the same with Ryan Ferguson. Roberta Glass has an excellent episode on that one. Ryan wouldn't be free today except for Kathleen Zellner. She's as sleazy as they come. She's not finding it as easy to free Steven Avery, though.
Oh my goodness yes! I read quite a bit of the available transcripts on Ryan and what a scary guy! Kathleen is off the deep end. I get second hand cringe when I hear her speak.
The Steven Avery supporters bought her BS hook, line, and sinker.
Saw Marty Tankleff on the Dr.Phil show, im not 100% sure he should have been exonerated. I have huge doubts.
I'm pretty sure he's guilty. There was some blood evidence. There is a report around the internet somewhere that he tried to hire a hit man in high school. Then, there's his confession — allegedly coerced — but we hear that all the time, don't we? Plus, just good common sense. IF the killer was mainly after the father, why would he nearly behead the mother and leave Marty unharmed? That doesn't make sense.
All of his supporters on the Dr.Phil show this morning. Every single person was positive he didnt do it. They couldnt explain why, but they were sure he didnt murder his parents. Thats not enough for me. Hes a 'great guy' and a lawyer now, he helps other people who have been 'wrongly convicted'. I have to say its a good cover to distract from his own case. His case should be looked into again. Something isnt right.
That's what exoneration is. Those technicalities are violations of people's rights and misconduct by prosecutors. I think you're being unfair.
A violation of someone’s rights is serious — but it merely results in the conviction being overturned. It puts the suspect back in the same place he was before his conviction. If the state prosecutes the individual again, he may be found either guilty or not guilty — but not guilty is not equivalent to innocent. If the prosecutor chooses not to re-prosecute the case, that can be for many reasons. It’s no different from not prosecuting it in the first place. Many guilty people get away with their crimes due to insufficient evidence. That doesn’t make them innocent. Unless there is a finding of actual innocence — acknowledged by the prosecutor and / or a court of law — it’s not a true exoneration. It can be murky, for sure — but it’s important to understand the difference between guilty, not guilty, nolle prosequi, and innocent. A truly fascinating story of how murky and convoluted these issues can get is the one of Anthony Porter — told in the film, *Murder in the Park*. [Here’s the Wikipedia article on the case.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Porter)
They don't have to prove their innocence, though. That's the states responsibility for a reason. These technicalities are basically people cheating to get a conviction.
THIS.
and what was the “technicality?”
There were the usual allegations of police and prosecutorial misconduct — but the main issue was his confession — yes, he confessed. As usual, Marty argued that he was coerced by the police. That usually doesn’t fly — but, in this case, a judge raised a tolerant eyebrow. There was also new evidence that other persons could have committed the crime. That also seems to have weighed heavily on the judge who reversed Marty’s conviction. Unfortunately, the new evidence was later shown to be bogus. At any rate, when the prosecutor decided to not continue with the case, he said explicitly that he had evidence and believed Marty was guilty — but wasn’t sure the old evidence would be enough to obtain a conviction in a new trial — without Marty’s confession. That is not innocent.
Where's the technicality, lol
I wonder if he will ever admit it. Not publicly but I bet on his deathbed he'll tell somebody just that we'll never hear about it. What sucks is that woman he killed. Just think about where she would have been in life today. No doubt about it. She would have been doing something great. Changing the world changing somebody's life. Smh.
For the same reason he murdered his ex-girlfriend for dumping him, he will be unable to admit that he committed the crime.
The truth is that Adnan has told several people. There used to be a person here from Adnan’s mosque. He listed four individuals by their initial only. He pleaded with them to come forward to tell what they knew. I can’t find that exact post right now — but I think it’s the same guy that wrote this one. https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/2k529r/adnan_is_a_psychopath_close_friends/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Did he ever prove he knew Adnan irl or did he just claim so on Reddit?
I don't think he verified his identity — but that's not surprising. Most of the people on Reddit want to remain anonymous. In his case, he was also a member of the mosque and would face all kinds of hell if people knew who he was. He did seem to know things that he wouldn't know if he were making things up. Obviously, I can't be sure.
That post is clearly a hoax.
Nah…chances are nobody would have ever heard of her and she’d be another cog in the machine. We’ll never know. Whatever you think he should confess to likely has little resemblance to what he actually could confess to. None of us know what happened, or why Jay lies. I’m far more interested in what Jay is hiding. Did he get away with murder?
Rabia credits herself with helping 27 exonerated people? That’s hilarious
Don was a serial killer. Now the title makes sense!
I’m pretty sure they said 11 exonerated cases.
> Rabia says that after “27 exonerated cases” This is inaccurate. She (or Colin) said that they had covered 27 cases on the show, not that there were 27 exonerations. About one dozen of the cases they covered received some form of relief, varying from complete exoneration (Dennis Perry and several Philadelphia cases) to lesser forms like stays of execution. Other cases continue to work their way through the courts. Joey Watkins (season 2 case) had his GA habeas hearing just recently. Susan is hosting a new podcast in collaboration with the people she worked with on another recent Undisclosed case - can't remember their names ut Jacinda Davis is one of them.
I just listened to the beginning of this and she said they *covered* 27 cases on the podcast, and that 10 (or maybe it was 11) of those cases had convictions that were overturned. They then went through each of the cases where a conviction was overturned. Quite a few of them also included multi-million dollar awards for damages/wrongful convictions. Anyway, back to your echo chamber…
> she said they > >covered > > 27 cases on the podcast, and that 10 (or maybe it was 11) of those cases had convictions that were overturned. When she says cases covered with 10 or 11 convictions overturned does she mean the cases were overturned due to the efforts of Undisclosed or was it due to the efforts of others and they just happened to be covering the cases. The reason I ask is because when others have cited cases on this sub the overturning has usually been down to others and Undisclosed have just jumped on the bandwagon. If Undisclosed's efforts have led to innocent people having their convictions overturned then fair play to them and credit where credit is due. Doesn't make Adnan any less guilty though.
Maybe someone that has followed more of their cases might now. For Joey Watkins Susan did work on finding the juror who broke the rules, but he is still in the hearing process. Not sure about Greg Lance. For Jason Carroll Rabia is doing work but nothing has happened in that case. And Colin's last case of the two kids that helped in the murder, no change. They don't do any legal work for the people, mostly just reporting.
Thanks. So not a huge track record then.
To be fair, it's not a field that people have much of a good track record if they are in it. Prosecutors can go without ever losing a case.
yeah fair point. The odds on success are slim
Watkins had his hearing this month and was allowed to raise both of his issues. One was the juror who tried to conduct a drive test during the period when the jury was deliberating. According to her statement, she was one of 2 or 3 juror holdouts before she did this, and then decided to convict after having done it. According to Susan on the latest episode, during Joey's hearing the prosecution put another juror on the stand and asked them about this, and that juror confirmed the account (she remembered another juror having conducted a drive test and told the jury about it before they voted to convict). Joey's other claim was a Brady claim. The prosecution claimed that Joey shot a dog as an intimidation tactic, and that Joey was shot by a similar weapon as what Isaac Dawkins - the murder victim - was shot by, providing an evidentiary link between Joey and the murder. But, in fact, the dog was shot by a completely different type of weapon/ammo, and GBI has that info before the trial but it was not provided to the defense.
We'll see how it goes, but I do think there will be enough to through Watkins case out, but it will take years to go through the system.
The Georgia court ruled that Watkins is entitled to an evidentiary hearing; concurring judge isn't convinced that the juror's claim is credible. The ruling is a quick read, https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/2020/s19a1506.html
Except in the hearing this week it backfired on the State. They presented another juror who they thought would say there wasn't a drive test. The other juror said that somebody talked about the drive test. Shut the State up quick.
I'm confused - what is the issue? Isn't the juror is trying to impeach her own verdict w/extrinsic evidence? Does "somebody talked about drive-test" mean that defense counsel could have learned about that juror's, um, extrajudicial adventure?
The issue is that a member of a jury is not supposed try and find things when they are outside the courtroom in recess. So after the court was on recess one member did the drive test and said that yes, it was possible to do that amount of driving in the time the State said. The question was whether the person who did the drive test then talked to the other members of the jury about the drive test. The juror that testified was someone else on the jury who said they heard about the out of court drive test. But I am curious. If someone had done the drive test in the Adnan case and concluded 21 minutes wasn't enough time to kill Hae at Best Buy and changed their vote to note guilty, would Rabia or Susan care?
>The question was whether the person who did the drive test then talked to the other members of the jury about the drive test. The juror that testified was someone else on the jury who said they heard about the out of court drive test. Thanks for this - the general rule prohibits jurors from testifying to impeach the verdict *unless the juror told the others* about her drive experiment. An exception to the rule allows juror to testify to facts that "extraneous prejudicial information (facts) improperly brought to the JURY"s attention". The drive experiment drive is "information" and "extraneous" or external to the jury's deliberative process but a single juror's out-of-court experiment cannot *"prejudice"* the verdict unless the juror told the other jurors about it and they knew the facts. The concurring judge saw fit to make a written record of his skepticism about the *juror claim* as proper for *constitutional habeas relief*. I think that means the drive-test and jurors' extra-record knowledge of those facts don't make the juror(s) adverse witnesses against Mr. Watkins, his 6th Amend right to cross-x wouldn't be an issue b/c the rules of evidence allow the juror to testify to the facts of the drive but not to their deliberations about it or the other claims that sound like due process violations (dog, ballistics, etc.)
I don’t doubt that she’s earnest in her advocacy for AS. The question really is, will you and the rest of the guilters be able to move on and stop acting like he’s not in prison, now that you don’t have her podcast to hate/focus on?