America On the Docket

Jeff, thank you. Criminal defense attorney Manny Medrano joining me now. Manny, what does this mean now for Adnan Syed?

Well, I'll tell you, this is an extraordinary case because the Maryland Supreme Court, in a vote of 4 to 3, has reached out and hit redo and restart. The murder convictions have been reinstated, and it raises a lot of very interesting legal issues. Number one, Victims' rights. You know, I've prosecuted murder cases, Carolyn. I've defended murder cases now as a criminal defense lawyer. And victims, always under the law, have a right to have some input to explain to the judge who sentences a defendant the impact that this terrible crime had on me and my family. What's unusual here is the Maryland Supreme Court is now expanding victim rights to actually allow them not only to say, hey, this impacted my life, the murder, but also that they should have some say on the, on the constitutional legal issues. That in itself, Carolyn, is groundbreaking and very new. So it's quite a surprise with the Supreme Court ruling today.

Sure. And let's get into that even further because the Maryland court did say this is a 4-3 decision. And the decision says, quote, in part, in an effort to remedy what they perceived to be an injustice to Mr. Syed, the prosecutor and the circuit court worked an injustice against Mr. Lee, Mr. Lee being the victim's brother here. The decision goes on to say Mr. Lee's rights as a, quote, crime victim's representative were violated when he wasn't given enough of an advance warning about the hearing to vacate Saeed's conviction. So yeah, help us make sense of this even further, because where do Adnan Saeed's rights fit into all of this, his rights?

Well, I'll tell you what you have here is conflicting rights. Let me explain. I've handled cases where a client is in state prison in California he has a parole hearing, and the victim's family members in that case have a right to be physically present at that parole hearing, Carol. And so analogously here, the victim's family is saying, the brother specifically, I should have been permitted to appear in person, not by Zoom, that doesn't cut it. I have a right to be there in person. But I think also this case is very interesting for another key reason, because the underlying court in 2022 said, you know what? The prosecutors cheated. They didn't play by the rules. They committed what are called Brady violations. And all that means is there's evidence that shows the innocence of a defendant, and by law you're required to turn that stuff over to the criminal defense team. And that was not done in this case. So again, you have conflicting rights: the rights of the victims, the rights of prosecutors to go after bad guys, and finally the rights of Mr. Sayed in this case, who's been proclaiming for decades I'm absolutely innocent.

You know, and in fact, the dissenting judges on this, this panel, they in fact said that this is no longer about the victim's rights. This really is about the suspect's rights, the convicted person's rights, about the defendant's guilt. I just— it seems like the law is law, right? This is— there seems to be a lot of gray area here when it comes to this ruling and this decision. But legally, it should be pretty black and white.

Well, the problem with the law, and I've been doing this for 40 years, is it's never black and white. Invariably, Carolyn, it's gray, which is why it can be very disconcerting to the victims, to prosecutors, and to defense attorneys. Because as I said, the victims have certain rights.

Sure.

The prosecutor has a right to file that motion to vacate the conviction because they found, you know what, there were other suspects that— and that evidence was never presented to the defense. Carolyn, that is wrong. Prosecutors screwed up here. But again, at the end of the day, I think the Maryland Supreme Court is trying to reach some kind of balance. And yes, victims have— families have a right to participate. But the question is, Carolyn, to what extent? Okay. And the dissenting justices here in the Maryland Supreme Court said, you know, this is crossing the line. The victims do not have a right to address constitutional issues, the rules of evidence, the weight of the evidence. And that's why this is, I think, at the end of the day, Carolyn, such a controversial ruling.

So, Manny, what happens now? Uh, we—

this will go back to court. I don't believe a court date has been set, but basically it's a reset and a redo. Uh, the court's gonna— the trial court will decide, okay, uh, does— do these convictions stand or will they be vacated? But I can assure you this, no matter what, the family of the victim is going to be present this time around.

Yeah, and speaking of that, um, hypothetical, obviously, uh, But when convictions are vacated, when they're thrown out, overturned, what is the process of reopening the investigation so the responsible parties can then be caught and prosecuted and the victims can get justice?

Well, there's a $64,000 question because the case is so old now, Carolyn, is decades old, okay? And let's say hypothetically the lower court, when it comes back to the lower court, decides, you know what, I'm gonna vacate these convictions. Because of Brady violations, well then it's— the prosecution has to start from the beginning, and witnesses no doubt are no longer around or dead. Is the evidence— can you even find it anymore? DNA evidence, is it deteriorated and degraded so you can't really use it anymore? It's really hard to start up a new criminal investigation after over 20 years. So, but to come back full circle, the prosecution no doubt wants to vacate these convictions because they, they found— and they, when they filed the original motion to vacate— that the evidence did not support the convictions in this case.

You know, and, and all the while, two families are suffering, extreme suffering for both of those families. Um, criminal defense attorney Manny Mondrano, thanks so much for being with us. Appreciate it. Now on the