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.

Is it Thursday yet? #Serial

— Frank Lantz (@flantz) October 22, 2014

You’ve probably come across a tweet like the above on your timeline recently.  You click on that hashtag and fall down a rabbit hole. For the uninitiated, Serial is a podcast from the producers of This American Life that takes one true story and methodically unpacks it, week after week, immersing the listener and letting us in on narrator Sarah Koenig’s inner reflections, doubts, and evolving theories. It has brought about the phenomenon of mass binge-listening that, as the Wall Street Journal noted, harkens back to “the golden age of radio.”

In the first season that started in October, Serial delves into the 1999 murder of a Baltimore high-school student, Hae Min Lee, and the conviction of her ex-boyfriend, Adnan Syed, a seemingly exemplary student-athlete, for first degree murder. In episode one we learn that Syed’s conviction rests almost entirely on the (inconsistent) testimony of a friend named Jay, who pled guilty to an accessory charge for helping Syed bury the body. In interviews with Koenig 14 years after his conviction, Syed maintains his innocence and emphatically defends this position pointing to the prosecution’s lack of physical evidence tying him to the murder.  As each episode peels back a layer and reveals more, your conscience is yanked between disbelief that Adnan is capable of such a crime and the realization that he may, in fact, be guilty.

While this tension drives compelling “true crime” stories, the success of Serial is equally attributable to the fact that it challenges our understanding of how the justice system works. There’s a moment in episode eight of Serial where Koenig asks a former D.C. homicide detective, Jim Trainum, why detectives seemed to dismiss the inconsistencies in Jay’s testimony. Trainum says, “You don’t want to do something if it’s going to go against your theory of the case.” He tells Koenig, who is now incredulous and wondering where the truth fits in, “Rather than trying to get to the truth, what you’re trying to do is build your case and make it the strongest case possible.”

Ignoring inconsistencies when a witness’ story jibes with law enforcement’s theory of the case is what’s known as a ‘verification bias.’ The question then becomes how much of that bias is informed by stereotypes? Syed is a Muslim-American of Pakistani descent and the prosecution’s theory invoked his religious upbringing to suggest that he was torn between two worlds, and that he could be “possessive” and “controlling.” To a jury, the narrative that emerged may have resonated with stereotypes it had about Muslim men being controlling, and tipped the scale in favor of erasing any reasonable doubt of his guilt. In episode seven, Deirdre Enright, a lawyer with the Innocence Project, echoes this concern and her team notes several pieces of evidence found at the scene of the crime that were not subjected to forensic analysis.

At Syed’s sentencing on June 6, 2000, the Baltimore Sun reported that Baltimore Circuit Court Judge Wanda K. Heard, acknowledging Syed’s charisma and popularity, said: “You used that to manipulate people. Even today, I think you continue to manipulate even those who love you.”  Serial may never confirm Judge Heard’s intuition but it does make one thing profoundly clear: our need to make sense of a senseless tragedy can cause us to manipulate facts along the way, turning the quest for justice into a mirror that, in the best case, reflects a distorted version of the truth which validates our own prejudices.

Kesav Wable

Kesav Wable is an attorney practicing in New York, as well as an accomplished actor and writer. His short film For Flow, an HBO American Black Film Finalist in 2011, was broadcast on HBO/Cinemax, and he continues to develop scripts for the stage and screen. Contact Kesav at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Your Brain on Serial appeared first on Law Street.

On September 13 2014, 18-year-old University of Virginia student Hannah Graham went missing, and recently authorities arrested and charged 32-year-old Jesse L. Matthew Jr. in relation to the incident. His current charge is described as abduction with intent to defile in the case of Graham. (Intent to defile meaning he intended to sexually assault the victim.) Matthew is currently being held without bond and is scheduled for a hearing in early December. Unfortunately, after two weeks of searching, Graham has still not been found, but authorities are doing all they can to locate her.

This case is a tragedy and my heart goes out to Graham’s family and friends. One of the hardest things to understand in this case is recently surfaced reports alleging that Matthew has a history of sexual assault accusations, none of which ended in conviction. According to The Washington Post,

The alleged assaults occurred within an 11-month span from 2002 to 2003 as Jesse L. “LJ” Matthew Jr. moved from Liberty University in Lynchburg to Christopher Newport University in Newport News. Police investigated each report, but neither resulted in a criminal case, according to the Lynchburg prosecutor and a review of online court records in Newport News.

If the allegations of these cases from over a decade ago are true, and with minimal knowledge of the reasoning surrounding the dropped charges, it is hard not to wonder why Matthew got away with such crimes not once, but twice before harming another innocent young girl? These alleged incidents occurred while Matthew was a student attending university, and although legislation and public discourse surrounding campus sexual assault has been under the miscroscope in recent months, I cannot help but wonder how we can act to prevent this loophole?

This case is reminiscent of another sexual assault case with similar characteristics.  In 1996 Amie Zyla, an 8-year-old girl, was sexually molested and victimized by family friend Joshua Wade who was 14 years old at the time. Wade was adjudicated for a misdemeanor in juvenile court. Nine years later, Wade was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison for a series of sexual molestation cases involving the abuse of young children. This case caused huge controversy, and was the driving force behind expansions in the definition of sexual assault.

These two cases indicate the importance of people’s histories and backgrounds. We all make mistakes, and sometimes it is wrong for our privacy to be intruded upon, but with something like sexual assault cases — regardless of whether there has been a conviction — something about this needs to be mentioned. It doesn’t take a lot of common sense to understand how hard it can be to convict a perpetrator of sexual assault. There is often a lack of witnesses on top of fear and upset from the victim; with a case dependent on DNA testing, the odds are very slim. Just because cases may not be tried in court — like Matthew’s two alleged college incidents — it does not mean that they didn’t happen and are not warning signs for things to come.

The media has spent its energy publicizing Matthew’s past. This runs a risk of setting off stricter registration laws for sexual offenders, which have proven to do more harm than good. By broadcasting the background of a perpetrator who was in society seemingly living normally until his arrest for the disappearance of a young girl, I question whether the media is supporting the need to find Graham and bring her home safely, or whether it is striking the ‘stranger danger’ rape myth back into society?

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Case of Hannah Graham and the Myth of Stranger Danger appeared first on Law Street.

When I was 21 about to graduate from college, my cousin Katie, six at the time, promised me that she would come live with me when I got a job and be my maid because she really, really liked using her play broom and mop to clean. As a future law student, I realized something about this statement:

1. Katie told me she would do this (offer).
2. I said, ‘sounds good’ (acceptance).
3. My place would be clean, and without a maid it definitely wouldn’t be, and Katie would be able to fulfill her love of cleaning while simultaneously having a place to live (consideration).
4. We were both more than likely on the same page (mutuality).

Clearly, this was a legally enforceable oral contract. Sweet!

So, a few years later I moved to New Jersey to start my independent, adult life and told her she was required to come with me. Imagine my surprise when she, now nine, told me she no longer liked cleaning, and plus her parents probably wouldn’t let her come with me because they would miss her too much.

Courtesy of Tumblr.

I knew a breach when I saw one, and I told her I might have to sue; however, more pressing matters existed at the time, and I kind of forgot. But I was reminded of this story recently when I read an article about Jesse Dimmick.

Dimmick faced the same dilemma that I did with Katie: he made a very clear oral contract with a couple, and they just went and breached it. Unlike me, though, Dimmick had the strength and character to actually fight for his rights and sue.

Here is the story: Dimmick and an accomplice went to the Aurora motel in Colorado and met Michael Curtis; the men were all big druggies. The duo stabbed Curtis to death, stole his drugs and wallet, and ran away (Dimmick pled guilty to this so I feel free to leave off the “allegedly” here). The accomplice was then caught and arrested at another motel. This made Dimmick think that the cops might want to arrest him too, and he knew he had to do something to protect himself.

So he went to Kansas where he found some friends: Jared and Lindsay Rowley. He didn’t know the couple before he entered their house uninvited and held them at knifepoint, but something like that shouldn’t stand in the way of potential companionship.

To celebrate the newly formed friendship, the couple offered the fugitive food, drink, and a blanket. They then watched movies together until Dimmick fell asleep. This is where this story takes a turn for the worst: the Rowleys turned out to be very bad hosts. When their new pal fell asleep, they had the audacity to run to the cops and give away his location. The police came barging in to wake up the sleepy murderer from his much-needed nap, shooting him in the process.

Not even done with their betrayal, this horrible couple actually sued Dimmick for home invasion and stress! But don’t worry, Dimmick realized that the Rowleys were in the wrong and decided to make sure they never treated any other fugitive on the run from the law in a similar manner: he countersued.

Dimmick had realized the same thing that I had realized with Katie:

1. He told the couple that he would give them an undisclosed amount of money if they hid him (offer).
2. He said they agreed to the offer (acceptance).
3. He would have a safe haven to protect him since he “feared for his life,” and they would get money (consideration).
4. I’m sure both parties knew what they were doing here (mutuality).

Clearly, this was a legally enforceable oral contract. And Dimmick wanted $235,000 for this egregious act. After all, not only did they breach the contract, but that breach caused the poor man to get shot.

Strangely, the court decided to dismiss this lawsuit despite the strong case Dimmick presented. Then, to pour gas on the fire, Dimmick was first convicted of two counts of kidnapping and sentenced to eleven years then convicted of murder and given another 37 years.

I just don’t understand the court system. When a man with a clearly valid case like this one cannot win, what is the point in even trying? Horrible as this is to say, with this line of inappropriate judicial highhandedness, there is a chance I wouldn’t have even won my case against Katie despite the fact that I was clearly right.

I sympathize with Dimmick. It is hard to trust anyone these days, and the only solution seems to be to get everything in writing and probably also have it notarized. Next time Katie offers to work for me, I’ll have learned my lesson. I hope for his sake Dimmick will too. If some other inmate offers him protection for certain “other favors,” Dimmick should break out the pen and paper: I’d hate for him to lose another case orally.

Courtesy of GIPHY.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Free Advice: Oral Contracts Don’t Apply When You’re Held at Knifepoint appeared first on Law Street.