Samantha Bae

Samantha Bee, who really is just marvelous at pinpointing what we’re all thinking about this election, took Donald Trump to task over his claims of “partial birth abortions” at the last debate. But partial birth abortions, as Bee points out, aren’t actually a thing–in fact the question by Chris Wallace, the moderator, wasn’t even accurate in the first place. Only a tiny percentage–under 2 percent of abortions–are after 21 weeks. And they’re overwhelmingly for medical reasons, like because the woman’s life is at risk. Watch Bee’s takedown of Wallace and Trump here:

Also, kudos to Bee for our favorite nickname for Trump yet: a “dick-waving Berlusconi knock-off.”

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 25, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 podcast that captivated millions of listeners now gets its real life sequel–Adnan Syed from “Serial” has been granted a new trial after 16 years in prison. The judge in the case, Martin Welch, vacated the murder conviction on Thursday.

Adnan Syed, now 36, became a famous name when the podcast “Serial” aired two years ago. The podcast told the story of his conviction in the murder of his high school girlfriend Hae Min Lee. Prosecutors claimed he strangled and buried Lee in a park in Baltimore. Listeners were divided over whether he was guilty or not, and the journalist Sarah Koenig set out to find out the truth.

The main evidence that led to Syed’s conviction in 2000 was information from cell towers that showed where he was (or rather where his phone was) at the time of the murder. However, many people have questioned the reliability of that information. Syed’s former attorney Christina Gutierrez, who passed away in 2004, failed to cross-examine the state’s cell tower expert.

She also failed to contact and question an important witness who claimed she had been with Adnan Syed in the school library at the time of Lee’s murder. Asia McClain, the witness, recently gave birth to a baby and told ABC that she was shocked but excited to hear the news. This was her reaction on Twitter:

Wow…I'm speechless. New Baby, New Trial

— Asia McClain Chapman (@AsiaRChapman) June 30, 2016

As a result of the podcast’s success–millions of listeners tuned in, easily breaking previous podcast subscription records–and interviews with McClain, the case received new attention. Syed’s new attorney Justin Brown tried to get a new trial in place because of the potential alibi McClain’s testimony could provide. Judge Welch denied the trial request, but vacated the sentence because of the cell tower issue.

Syed’s friend Rabia Chaudry was the first to bring his case to Koenig’s attention.

People keep asking, no one has spoken to him. He did not have phone privileges yesterday! We expect him to call us today.#AdnanSyed

— rabia chaudry (@rabiasquared) July 1, 2016

Brown was happy about the news and said he will look into the possibilities for bail. But as of now, the conviction is gone. He told Washington Post:

“Think of it as the conviction is erased. It’s gone. So if the state were to retry him, essentially, we would be starting from scratch. The whole trial could potentially start again.”

Check out this clip from a press conference with Brown:

@CJBrownLaw shares more information about #AdnanSyed being granted a new trial during press conference!https://t.co/zs6uejEBEQ

— Undisclosed Podcast (@Undisclosedpod) June 30, 2016

Lee’s family has not spoken publicly about the case, but released a statement in February during a new hearing of Syed, reports the Baltimore Sun.

“It remains hard to see so many run to defend someone who committed a horrible crime, who destroyed our family, who refuses to accept responsibility, when so few are willing to speak up for Have,” the statement read.

People are still divided over Syed’s guilt in the killing of Lee. But the question remains—if he didn’t do it, then who did?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Adnan Syed of “Serial” Fame Granted Another Trial appeared first on Law Street.

Are you a Netflix user or a fan of the podcast “Serial?” If so, then you’ve definitely heard of the Innocence Project–it’s been a part of Steven Avery’s story in “Making a Murderer,” and the Innocence Project has been investigating Adnan Syed’s case in “Serial” as well. The Innocence Project is a non-profit organization that strives to find the truth when prisoners continually maintain their innocence after they’ve been incarcerated. In the last several decades, it has become all too clear that the American justice system isn’t without its flaws, which sometimes leads to wrongful convictions. It is these wrongful convictions that the Innocence Project strives to fight in hope that they will lead to law revisions in each state. But what exactly is the Innocence Project? Read on to find learn more.

How Did the Innocence Project Get Started?

The Innocence Project was founded in 1992 at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld as a legal clinic, but later turned into a nationwide project. It was founded after the release of a landmark study by the US Department of Justice and the US Senate that found that 70 percent of wrongful convictions are because of eyewitness misidentification of perpetrators. This study was revised in 1999 to become the manual for law enforcement regarding eyewitness testimony. The Innocence Project became a 501(c)(3) non-profit in 2003 after maintaining its role as a legal clinic at Cardozo for more than a decade.

Both Scheck and Neufeld were law professors at Cardozo and also worked as defense attorneys when they founded the Innocence Project. They are known nationwide as being part of the O.J. Simpson defense team who fought his double homicide charge in 1995. Notably, Simpson was found not guilty in that case in one of the most infamous invocations of reasonable doubt in US history; his defense team, including Scheck and Neufeld, have achieved notoriety in the years since.

Misidentification by Eyewitnesses

Since the original study in the early 1990s on the tendency for eyewitnesses to misidentify perpetrators of crimes, many more studies have been released that continue to corroborate those facts. Eyewitnesses have become notoriously unreliable. They often remember small details but not the big picture, and they are beginning to be treated as less valuable than hard forensic evidence in court cases. This is a big win for the Innocence Project, which has been trying to reform laws in each US state since its inception.

There are two ways that the Innocence Project is trying to reform laws to help prevent wrongful convictions. First, it is trying to make sure that DNA testing is accessible to all sectors of law enforcement, no matter how remote or small. This will help take the burden off of eyewitness testimony in trials. Second, by compensating the wrongfully convicted after they are freed, the justice system pays for its mistake. This should make law enforcement and the court system more interested in convicting the guilty party and should prevent more wrongful convictions in the future.

Looking to the Past

Criminal Justice Degrees Guide compiled a list of ten infamous wrongful executions that could have been prevented by the Innocence Project. The list includes Claude Jones, who was executed for killing a liquor store owner based on the testimony of his friends and a hair found at the scene. The hair was later proven to have been the owner’s—not Jones’—by DNA evidence after Jones had already been executed. Another sad example is the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in 2004 for killing his three young daughters in a house fire. Arson investigators testified that the fire was intentional, even though Willingham appealed for years. Five years after Willingham was executed, it was determined that the arson investigators used flawed science in their investigation; this could mean that Willingham may be the first officially declared wrongful execution in the state of Texas. These are just two of many sad cases of wrongful executions, which was part of the drive to form the Innocence Project in the first place.

What Methods are Used to Exonerate Prisoners?

In most cases, prisoners are exonerated based on DNA evidence. The majority of the cases that are taken on by the Innocence Project had convictions that occurred before DNA was regularly tested. Therefore, the lawyers affiliated with the Innocence Project generally move to have evidence looked at again so that anything available can be tested for DNA that may have been overlooked originally. An interesting and important point to remember is that, as long as it is not contaminated, DNA evidence can be preserved for decades. This is especially true with blood and other bodily secretions and hair follicles.

Other forensic evidence may be used to exonerate prisoners as well. In one case, blood type should have proved that the convicted person couldn’t have done it from the beginning; he was eventually exonerated on that evidence. In other cases, the real perpetrator was caught and confessed, exonerating the falsely imprisoned. In one final example, a judge found that a prosecutor willingly withheld evidence of innocence and overturned a prior conviction.

Success Stories

So far, there have been 337 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States, along with seven cases where falsely convicted prisoners were exonerated by other means. In many of the cases, the convicted person spent more than a decade behind bars before DNA evidence or other evidence was able to exonerate him. Some even spent time on death row.

Oddee tallied ten of the worst wrongful conviction cases, and it’s easy to see how lawyers can become very passionate about the Innocence Project. William Dillon, for instance, served 27 years for murder, but was released when DNA evidence proved he wasn’t the killer. Kirk Bloodsworth spent nine years in prison—two of those on death row—before DNA testing excluded him. Robert Dewey was freed from a life without parole sentence because of a blood stain on his shirt that supposedly linked him to a murder; 17 years later, that blood was tested for DNA and it was concluded that it was not the victim’s blood. These are only three examples, but they show how the story usually goes when the Innocence Project is successful.

How Does the Innocence Project Work?

The Innocence Project works in a fairly set pattern each time it gets involved in a post-conviction case. Often, the convicted person or the person’s family reaches out to the Innocence Project members, asking them to take a look at the person’s case; other times, the Innocence Project independently hears of a case and offers to take it on. Once the Innocence Project takes on a case, its lawyers work tirelessly to get the evidence reviewed again and to get the case back in front of a judge for reassessment. This process is rarely quick—more often than not, it takes years for the Innocence Project to prevail in a case. There are two end goals that the Innocence Project is always working toward: freeing the wrongly convicted person, and reforming laws that prevent justice in each state where they work.

In concurrence with its work to free the wrongfully convicted, the Innocence Project also continually works toward reforming the justice system in order to prevent future wrongful convictions. This includes strategic litigation, where lawyers on the Innocence Project team work through the legal system to bring attention to the causes of wrongful conviction. Once the causes are made known, the Strategic Litigation team usually works with the Innocence Project’s Policy department to start petitioning to change laws in order to prevent future injustice in the court system.

The Innocence Project in the News

So, why have you been hearing of the Innocence Project in pop culture recently? There are two likely reasons: “Serial,” the ultra-popular podcast from NPR, and “Making a Murderer,” Netflix’s sensational documentary that was released in December 2015.

In the last episode of the first season of “Serial,” Sarah Koenig talks to Deirdre Enright, who leads the Innocence Project clinic at the University of Virginia Law School. Enright said that her students have opened an investigation into Adnan Syed’s conviction, and they have identified another potential suspect. This is entirely separate of the appeals process that Syed is currently going through in the state of Maryland, but will definitely help his case should he get a new trial.

The Innocence Project has been even more prominently featured in the news in the case of Steven Avery, the man who is the subject of “Making a Murderer.” Avery is actually featured on the Innocence Project’s website, because he is a success story for them—he was exonerated after being convicted of the attack and rape of a jogger in 1985. He spent 18 years in prison for that crime before DNA evidence freed him—and two years later, he was back in court, this time facing murder charges in the death of Teresa Halbach, a photographer who was last seen on Avery’s property. He and his nephew have been in prison for that crime for the last 9 years, and the Innocence Project is again involved in Avery’s case.

The Medill Justice Project at Northwestern University–formerly the Medill Innocence Project–has also been in the news in the last year, but for a completely different reason. In February 2015, a man was freed from prison after serving 15 years for a crime he did not commit–but he alleges that he was put in prison after a coerced confession to one of the professors who led the Medill Innocence Project. When he was imprisoned, another man was freed, and it is postulated that the original man was the actually perpetrator. This was very unfortunate press for the Innocence Project, but the program has since been under reform. The Medill Justice Project is now being led by a former investigative reporter for the Washington Post, and has continued to do good work despite the lawsuit.

Conclusion

In the two-plus decades that the Innocence Project has been working toward freeing the wrongfully convicted, it has grown and had many success stories. What started as a small law school clinic in New York, is now a nationwide non-profit with 344 success stories. Forensic evidence has become standard in court cases now, but there are still many prisoners who were convicted based on more circumstantial evidence, like eyewitness testimony. Humans make mistakes, and that has become apparent as the Innocence Project continues to free wrongfully convicted criminals throughout the country. The greater goal now, after two decades of working on individual cases, is to reform laws in each state that allow eyewitness testimony to put away people for crimes in the first place.

Resources

Primary

US Department of Justice: Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement

State of Washington: Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Legal and Practical Aspects

The Justice Project: Eyewitness Identification: A Policy Review

Additional

The Atlantic: Making a Murderer: An American Horror Story

Virginia Lawyer: Behavioral Science Research Leads to Department of Justice Guidelines for Eyewitness Evidence

Oddee: 10 of the Worst Wrongful Imprisonment Cases

Criminal Justice Degrees Guide: 10 Infamous Cases of Wrongful Execution

Time: The Innocence Project Tells Serial Fans What Might Happen Next

Huffington Post: 7 Terrifying Things ‘Making a Murderer’ Illustrates About American Justice

The Washington Post: Where Do the Cases at the Center of Netflix’s ‘Making a Murderer’ Stand Now?

Columbia Journalism Review: How the Medill Justice Project has Thrived Following Controversy

The Daily Beast: The Innocence Project May Have Framed a Man for a Crime He Didn’t Commit

Amanda Gernentz Hanson

Amanda Gernentz Hanson is a Minnesota native living in Austin, Texas. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from Hope College and a Master’s degree in Technical Communication from Minnesota State University, where her final project discussed intellectual property issues in freelancing and blogging. Amanda is an instructional designer full time, a freelance writer part time, and a nerd always. Contact Amanda at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Innocence Project: A Shot at Redemption in the U.S. Criminal Justice System appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever made a mistake that affected people at work? I’m willing to bet that you have. I have–I used to work in the Chemistry stockroom at a major university–I think that’s all I need to say. In some lines of work, meteorology, for example, mistakes are part of the day to day, and people don’t say much when something is flubbed a little bit. On the other hand, there are careers where mistakes cost lives–like surgery. Watch “Grey’s Anatomy” and you’ll know that, fiction aside, mistakes happen there, too. It’s rare, though, that a mistake at work will cause public ridicule.

Unless your job is hosting the Miss Universe pageant, I suppose.

The internet has been having a field day with the fact that Steve Harvey, the host of “Family Feud” and this year’s Miss Universe pageant, announced the wrong winner at the conclusion of the 2015 pageant that took place on  December 20 in Las Vegas. He awkwardly apologized on live television while last year’s Miss Universe took the crown and sash off of one stunned young woman, Miss Colombia, and then put it on another: Miss Philippines.

Entertainment Tonight has covered much of the aftermath, revealing that Steve Harvey is likely to continue hosting Miss Universe for several years, as stated in the contract that he signed just days before this year’s pageant. It’s also been revealed how he made his mistake–he didn’t rehearse who had won. He read the name off the cue card and then kept reading, seeing that his revealed winner was actually the first runner up. Harvey has reportedly apologized to both contestants. ET also revealed that Miss Colombia, Ariadna Gutierrez, has accepted her “destiny,” as she calls it, and loves that the entire world is talking about her country. She then took the high road and congratulated the new Miss Universe, Pia Alonzo Wurtzbach from the Philippines.

That’s all well and good, but let’s take a step back and think about this in a different way–the power our mistakes have to stay with us.

For example, many of you listened to the first season of the sensationally popular podcast, “Serial,” I’m sure. There were many aspects of the story that host Sarah Koenig explored, but one of the most cut and dry seemed to be this–Adnan Syed’s original attorney, Cristina Gutierrez (no relation to Miss Columbia), allegedly messed up his case. Her “flub” (if we can call it that) was one of those that changed someone’s life. Rather than taking a crown and year of publicity and appearances away from someone, her mistakes took away someone’s freedom (maybe–one can never be sure, but other lawyers have been outspoken in the fact that, had Syed’s case been presented properly, he would have never been convicted in the first place). The unfortunate aspect of this part of the “Serial” story is that Gutierrez died in 2004, so she can neither explain what was going on in her head at the time nor apologize to Syed, his family, or Hae Min Lee’s (the victim’s) family.

And, like in the case of Steve Harvey, the internet (and other podcasters) are giving her a really hard time. In fact, her son has even made a statement to a reporter at the Baltimore Sun defending his mother and her actions because of all of the attention “Serial” pointed at his mother. But the internet is unforgiving, in both the cases of Cristina Gutierrez and Steve Harvey.

It begs the question—can mistakes ever be forgotten online, or will they always haunt us?

Well,  it certainly seems that the memes and videos surrounding Steve Harvey are here to stay. Poor Cristina Gutierrez—whether or not she flubbed Syed’s case, nothing can be changed now. Even if he successfully wins his appeal, he still lost at least 16 of his best years to a life sentence in a Baltimore prison. Now that “Serial” has brought her seemingly small murder case to the big time, her name will most likely be forever be tarnished in the internet’s eyes. These two examples show us that, while the internet may forgive (such as in the publishing of the apologies released by Harvey), it never forgets. Sure, Steve Harvey is a celebrity; but Cristina Gutierrez was not. She was a regular person who was thrust into the spotlight after her untimely death in a way that would likely embarrass her if she was alive to see it. It’s a good example to everyone else—watch what you say and do. In the age of the internet, you seemingly can’t take it back.

Amanda Gernentz Hanson

Amanda Gernentz Hanson is a Minnesota native living in Austin, Texas. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from Hope College and a Master’s degree in Technical Communication from Minnesota State University, where her final project discussed intellectual property issues in freelancing and blogging. Amanda is an instructional designer full time, a freelance writer part time, and a nerd always. Contact Amanda at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Steve Harvey, Miss Universe, and Mistakes in the Internet Age appeared first on Law Street.

Last year, the podcast “Serial” by Sarah Koenig captivated the country. Since the end of the first season, it was made explicit that a second season was in the works. Now, rumor and speculation have it that the second season will focus on the infamous case of Bowe Bergdahl, a solider who was accused of desertion in Afghanistan and brought home in a high-profile prisoner swap. Bergdahl is now on trial for his supposed crimes–and apparently “Serial” is right there with him.

This rumor about Bergdahl comes from a Maxim piece that attributes the news to anonymous sources. The piece stated:

Last week, a preliminary hearing for Bergdahl’s case was held at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas, to determine if the former POW will be tried in a court-martial. According to someone present at the hearing, Serial host Sarah Koenig and at least one of the show’s producers were in spotted in the courtroom.

Also present was screenwriter Mark Boal, who wrote Zero Dark Thirty. Boal’s company, Page 1 Productions, has apparently been working on bringing Bergdahl’s story to the big screen ever since his release, and several anonymous sources familiar with the production tell Maxim that Boal has provided the Serial team with research material, including taped interviews with Bergdahl.

The piece mentioned that “Serial” had reportedly spoken to former members of Bergdahl’s unit as well.

Given these pieces of information–as juicy and gossipy as they may be–it seems pretty clear that “Serial” season 2 will focus on Bergdahl. But that makes for an interesting juxtaposition. The first season focused on case that, save those who have an excellent memory and resided in the greater Baltimore area in the late ’90s, no one really knew about. There was plenty of local media coverage, but prior to “Serial,” the names Adnan Syed and Hae Min Lee were cloaked in a reasonable level of anonymity.

On the other hand, Bowe Bergdahl’s story made national and international news when he was brought back to the United States last summer. Bergdahl maintains that he was captured and held hostage by the Taliban, but some of his fellow soldiers claim that he walked away deliberately. His trial will explore who is telling the truth; if found guilty Bergdahl could be looking at a life sentence.

It will be interesting to see if the differences between the two cases affect the production and reception of the podcast. While many “Serial” listeners quickly developed their own theories about Syed’s guilt or innocence, for the most part the only information they had was disseminated through Koenig and the show. But in Bergdahl’s case, many will have already made up their minds, given the level of coverage it has already received. One thing is for sure, however: if it’s anything like “Serial” season 1, it will certainly keep listeners enthralled.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rumor Has It: Second Season of Serial Will Focus on Bowe Bergdahl’s Case appeared first on Law Street.

The podcast “Serial” took the world by storm this fall. Never had a podcast been so talked about, so obsessed over, or raised such fascinating questions about a 15-year-old murder conviction. The case involved a young man named Adnan Syed who was convicted of murdering his ex-girlfriend. Although he was convicted a decade and a half ago, Syed’s case will now be heard again in court.

For those of you who missed “Serial,” here are the CliffNotes. Don’t worry, I’ll stay away from too many spoilers. Essentially, in 1999, a Baltimore high school senior named Hae Min Lee went missing and was later found dead. After a police investigation, Syed, her ex-boyfriend who was also a high school senior, was found guilty of her murder.

Fast forward almost 15 years to present day. Journalist Sarah Koenig was approached by Syed’s friends with concerns about the way his case was handled, and all the inconsistencies in the evidence that was brought up in court. Koenig was intrigued, and started looking into the case. She ended up producing a podcast–a journalistic enterprise–exploring the facts of the case.

A Maryland court just ruled that it will hear arguments on Syed’s case, mostly based on the fact that his lawyer, Christina Guttierez, may not have done her job effectively. Syed and his lawyers are arguing that Guttierez didn’t follow up with a possible alibi witness whom Koenig spoke to in the “Serial” podcast. They also argue that Guttierez failed Syed by not exploring the possibility of a plea deal when she was given the option. Given that Guttierez has since died of a heart attack, it’s unclear why she made those choices. They could have been incompetence, like Syed’s attorneys are arguing, or they could have been a strategic move.

After a few different attempts at an appeal failed since Syed was convicted, this most recent appeal was brought to the Maryland Special Court of Appeals. It’s important to note that Syed hasn’t actually been granted an appeal–this is just a small step toward that. Basically, the Maryland Special Court of Appeals has agreed to listen to what Syed and the state have to say, and then decide whether or not to order a new trial, or send it back to the Circuit Court.

Koenig posted about the development on the “Serial” website, saying:

In Episode 10 of the podcast, I reported that this appeal was alive by a thread. Now, I’d say it’s more of a … well-made string, maybe. Like the nylon kind. Because it means that the Court of Special Appeals judges think the issues Adnan raised in his brief are worth considering. That’s a pretty big hurdle for any appellant to clear.

Whether or not Syed will actually end up getting a new trial is very uncertain at this point. That being said, it’s a case that touched a lot of people, or at the very least opened the doors to some unsettling realities of our justice system. I’m sure all “Serial” fans will be anxiously awaiting the next news in this saga.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Subject of Serial Podcast Gets Appeal Opportunity appeared first on Law Street.

Major spoiler alert: this post is all about the Serial podcast finale. If you have not yet listened to Serial, go download it now, find a nice quiet place, and come back in approximately 12 hours.

All good to go?

Alright, so now that you’ve caught up on Serial, you know what happened in the finale that aired yesterday. It was pretty apparent that some people were upset with the way that the national phenomenon ended. I understand why–there wasn’t really an ending. Not in a classic sense, at least. Not in a way that we’ve been conditioned to believe there needs to be. We still don’t know who killed Hae Min Lee. We still don’t know whether or not Adnan Syed is guilty. We still don’t know that much at all.

America’s love affair with crime procedurals has a long history. Turn on the TV right now and you have a veritable slew from which to choose. Want to see a case go through the justice system from beginning to end? Check out “Law and Order.” Want to see unique cases regarding the Navy and the Marine Corps? Well, there’s “NCIS.” Are a genius forensic anthropologist and her hunky FBI partner more up your ally? I’d recommend “Bones.”

What do all of these shows have in common? At the end, with very exceptions, the bad guy gets caught. There may be conflicting evidence or different theories along the journey, but at the end of the episode the person who committed the crime ends up paying the price.

That’s fun when it comes to TV shows, but it is directly contrary to how things work in real life. Serial proves that.

Sarah Koenig went through the entire case of Adnan Syed piece by meticulous piece, and she still doesn’t have the answer. She put in way more time than the detectives on the case–not that I’m blaming them for that, it’s just the nature of two different professions. She put in way more time than the scientists and cops on my favorite procedurals who find one fingerprint and have their “Aha” moments. She literally took this thing apart with a fine-toothed comb, and she still wasn’t completely certain about what had happened to Hae on that fateful day in 1999.

Some people in the Twitterverse were upset not that there was no answer to who murdered Hae, but rather that the podcast was ending when it did. They were upset that Koenig didn’t continue digging. Again, I’m not, because that’s life. Answers are not guaranteed, and not everyone has the luxury of taking forever to find them. There are plenty of people who will never get their answers–parents who have lost their children, people who have lost their significant others, and innocent prisoners who were convicted for reasons they may never understand.

Those people may never get their answers. So why should we, fans of this podcast, get ours?

I would love to know who killed Hae Min Lee. I, like everyone else who got a little obsessed with this podcast, have my theories. But I think at the end of the day, what Koenig and her team accomplished wasn’t just a masterfully told story, but a living embodiment of the questions that our justice system has to deal with every single day. It’s easy to forget that, when you can just turn on the TV and see Agent Gibbs or Sergeant Benson or Agent Booth get the bad guy. Let Serial serve as a reminder that it’s almost never that simple.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Serial’s Ending Was Perfect: Here’s Why appeared first on Law Street.