Originally published by Carrington Coleman.
Adnan Syed v. State of Maryland
Maryland Court of Special Appeals, No. 2519 (May 18, 2015)
Order for Limited Remand
The appeal of Adnan Syed, subject of NPR’s popular Serial podcast, has taken a somewhat unusual turn. After the State had filed a well-crafted brief in opposition to Adnan’s own principal appeal brief (previously summarized here), the Maryland Court of Special Appeals on Monday stayed the appeal and ordered a “limited remand” for the trial court to consider issues raised in the January 2015 “affidavit” of potential alibi witness Asia McClain. That affidavit was filed earlier this year as the final exhibit to a supplement to Syed’s Motion for Leave to Appeal. McClain’s affidavit testimony not only bolstered her status as a potential alibi witness—whom Syed’s trial counsel allegedly failed to interview or even contact—but also raised concerns about possible misconduct by one of the prosecutors in the post-conviction process. But, while this remand Order is clearly good news for Syed and his supporters, it may not be the “home run” some see it to be.
“The purpose of the stay and the remand,” the Court said, “is to provide Syed with the opportunity to file with the circuit court a request … to re-open the previously concluded post-conviction proceeding in light of Ms. McClain’s January 13, 2015, affidavit, which has not heretofore been reviewed or considered by the circuit court.” And, even though it characterized the remand as “limited” and tied to the McClain affidavit, the appeals court seemed to suggest that if the circuit court granted the request to re-open, the ensuing proceeding there would essentially be wide open, and certainly not limited to the McClain affidavit—e.g., “the parties [will have] the opportunity to supplement the record with relevant documents and even testimony pertinent to the issues raised by this appeal,” and “the circuit court may, in its discretion, conduct any further proceedings it deems appropriate.” A great opportunity for Syed, to be sure.
Still, the appeals court’s Order likely was prompted less by its acceptance of what McClain said than by its desire to protect the record and by a concern for due process in a capital murder case, in appearance as well as in fact. The court correctly noted that, as things stood, the new McClain affidavit was not part of the record on appeal that it could properly consider in deciding whether to reverse the trial court’s denial of a new trial for Syed. Coming as late as it did, the affidavit could simply have been rejected and ignored by the court on this appeal. The State, in fact, argued that the affidavit should be stricken and then paid it only passing attention in its principal brief in opposition. But the affidavit unquestionably raised some disturbing issues—particularly the suggestion that prosecutor Kevin Urick may have mischaracterized McClain’s conversations with him and may have actively dissuaded her from appearing at the original post-conviction proceeding, even as the State argued that her non-appearance at that original hearing was yet another reason why Syed’s appeal should be denied. All things considered, the Court of Special Appeals likely concluded the better course was to allow this limited remand to let the circuit court sort these fact issues out, and to provide a mechanism for McClain’s assertions to be made a proper part of the record on appeal—that is, the court decided to protect its process and, perhaps, further insulate itself from being second-guessed by the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court.
But the remand is hardly a guarantee of a new trial. The circuit court retains discretion not only over the merits but also the procedures on remand, “taking any action it deems appropriate” under the remand Order. It could even deny the motion to re-open the post-conviction proceeding. Further, followers of this story would do well to remember that, with due respect to NPR’s Sarah Koenig, Asia McClain has never been subjected to cross-examination. Finally, it is entirely possible that even after a new full-blown hearing, the circuit court will still decide Syed is not entitled to a new trial. And such a decision, rendered after the circuit court took into account all the additional evidence proffered by Syed (including the previously missing testimony by Asia McClain), would be afforded considerable deference by the Court of Special Appeals.
Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.
from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/1HzjvY3
via Abogado Aly Website
No comments:
Post a Comment