Maryland’s highest court has reinstated Adan Syed’s murder conviction and ordered a new hearing in a lower court in Baltimore that vacated his conviction two years ago.
The case gained national attention when it was the topic of the popular “Serial” podcast.
Syed spent decades in prison, convicted of murder of his ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee in 1999.
His murder conviction was vacated and then all charges were dropped in 2022 after prosecutors in Baltimore said there were issues with the evidence in the case.
Hae Min’s brother, Young Lee, has been fighting ever since, claiming the legal rights of his family were violated as a result of that first hearing.
David Sanford is the attorney representing Young Lee. He joined WTOP’s Anne Kramer and John Domen to break down the latest development in this legal saga.
The transcript below has been lightly edited for clarity.
John Domen: What is your reaction to the Maryland Supreme Court ruling? What did your clients have to say about the decision, too?
David Sanford: Well, we are all delighted. The client is relieved. This case has been around for more than two decades now. We have a murder conviction of Adnan Syed, going back over 20 years. This case has been subjected to appeals up and down, all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, now to the Maryland Supreme Court. And at the end of the day, this is a victory for victims’ rights. And ultimately, Adnan Syed will have an opportunity to present whatever evidence he has in order to show that the conviction should effectively be overturned.
Anne Kramer: This ruling was 187 pages long. Can you explain, in the simplest terms for us, the argument that you all made on behalf of Young Lee when it comes to the legal rights for the victim’s family involved in that hearing for Adnan Syed? Because didn’t your client appear virtually for that hearing?
David Sanford: He did. He appeared virtually. He was given one business day’s notice. He lives in California. The hearing was held, of course, in Maryland, and he was told on a Friday that the hearing would take place on a Monday, and he asked for a one-week extension so that he could make plans to attend, and that motion for an extension was denied by the court. So he did appear, but the court ordered him to appear.
He was at work at the time, he had 30 minutes to hustle home and appear via Zoom. But most importantly, he wasn’t able to meaningfully participate in the process, because when the hearing started, the judge simply asked, “What do you have to say?” And he had nothing really to say, other than he was shocked to be there, because nothing had been presented in court. There was no evidence ever presented in open court. The public doesn’t know what, if any, evidence exists. We certainly don’t know what, if any, evidence exists that would suggest that Adnan Syed’s conviction should be overturned.
John Domen: OK, so help us out here. We are obviously not lawyers. We are told, though, that there is a new hearing that’s been scheduled or been ordered by the high court. Is it possible, is it likely even, that hearing will just sort of see the same thing happen all over again and the conviction will be tossed? Or what could happen there?
David Sanford: Well, we don’t know. So right now, the court has ordered the lower court to take this up. It’s going to be before a different judge, and that judge is going to hold a hearing. It’s going to schedule a hearing, ideally some time in the fall/winter of this year. At that hearing, the prosecutor and the defense will come together and be able to present any evidence that it has to suggest that Adnan Syed should remain a free man and that his conviction should effectively be overturned.
We don’t believe that evidence exists. We haven’t seen any evidence. We haven’t heard of any evidence. So now, the prosecution and the defense, they will have the burden to produce that evidence, and once they do, we’ll be able to comment on it. And if it shows that Adnan Syed really was unfairly, unjustifiably convicted, we’ll be the first to say that and to argue that Adnan Syed should remain a free man.
Anne Kramer: David, you made a point to say that this ruling is on the side and will help victims’ families in the future. How will that work? And why do you think that?
David Sanford: Well, because victims have a right under the Maryland Constitution to be treated with dignity, to be treated with respect and sensitivity, and those things mean something. They’re not empty platitudes. They mean something under the law. And what the Supreme Court has laid out in its 90-page opinion, there’s also a healthy dissent. But in the 90-page majority decision, it lays out what it means to be treated with respect in Maryland, and it’s a great day for victims and victims’ rights.
Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.
© 2024 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.
