Legal precedent may be at stake in Syed case
Maryland court prepares to hear appeal from Lee family
With the Appellate Court of Maryland set to hear oral arguments Thursday morning in Adnan Syed’s ever-continuing legal journey, observers warn the court’s impending ruling could permanently change how criminal cases move through the court.
A three-judge panel will hear arguments at 9 a.m. in Annapolis as to whether the brother of Hae Min Lee, a Woodlawn High School student found murdered in Leakin Park in 1999, received adequate notice about the Sept. 19 hearing to overturn Syed’s decades-old murder conviction in Lee’s death, and if the brother was afforded the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the proceedings.
Maryland law requires that prosecutors give reasonable notice about those types of hearings and that the victim be afforded the opportunity to speak if they want.
Lee’s brother, Young Lee, who lives on the West Coast, was able to address the court via video conference after Baltimore Circuit Judge Melissa Phinn denied his lawyer’s request to have the hearing postponed a week so Young Lee could attend in person. Prosecutors told Young Lee about the Monday hearing after a scheduling conference the Friday before — less than one full business day.
Young Lee is asking the appellate court to order a redo of that hearing, where he would be allowed to attend in person and his lawyer could challenge evidence.
Both the Office of the Maryland Attorney General, which generally supports Lee’s appeal, and Erica Suter, Syed’s lawyer who is fighting against the appeal, wrote in their own filings that state law does not provide crime victims with the right to participate in a case by presenting evidence or arguing the law.
Should the court decide to rule in Young Lee’s favor, it would inject victims into every part of the criminal justice system, said David Jaros, faculty director of the University of Baltimore School of Law’s Center for Criminal Justice Reform. He cautioned that any potential precedent would be
determined by the scope of the ruling, and the court may choose to rule narrowly as a result.
“The [appellate] court is likely to be concerned that the implications of the decision don’t simply impact this specific case but would fundamentally alter how cases move through the system,” Jaros said. “It would change forever the role that victims play at every stage in the criminal process in a way that I don’t think was envisioned by the legislation that’s at issue.”
At the Sept. 19 hearing prosecutors described new evidence in the case about an alternative suspect in Hae Min Lee’s death that was known to the prosecution in 2000 but not turned over to Syed’s defense, an infraction known as a Brady violation.
Although both Young Lee and Syed are expected to attend Thursday’s proceedings, it is unlikely either will make public statements.
It is possible that because Young Lee was afforded the opportunity to speak by way of video conference that the court may find that even though an error was made by not allowing him to attend in person, it was not enough of an error to alter the outcome of the hearing, prominent Maryland appellate attorney Steve Klepper said.
“I think the decision may come down to the scope of the trial judge’s discretion when unexpected things happen,” said Klepper, who operates a blog focused on the state appellate court. “What kind of discretion does a trial judge have to say that under the circumstances Zoom participation is preferable to rescheduling a hearing to accommodate a witness’s desire to testify in person?”
Although Phinn overturned his conviction, the murder charges against Syed remained until former Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby’s office formally dismissed them in October.
Because there is no underlying criminal case Suter has argued in her own court filings that Young Lee’s appeal is moot, and that even if it weren’t he does not have standing as a party under the law.
Even if the court finds the appeal moot, the judges could rule that Young Lee’s rights were violated and that future proceedings should strive to avoid similar circumstances.
“I think if the court finds the appeal is moot, it will be likely to consider questions like, ‘Is this a matter better addressed by the legislature or the Rules Committee?’ ” said Klepper, referring to the judiciary’s standing committee tasked with regulating and determining court procedures.
Young Lee’s lawyers in court filings also accused Phinn and Mosby’s office of colluding behind closed doors to “choreograph” the hearing that ultimately saw Syed go free.
“It is a really big deal to attack the integrity of the judicial system and to suggest at the same time that both private attorneys and government officials are colluding to violate the law,” said Jaros, adding that such claims could present ethics issues for Young Lee’s attorneys if proved false.
The Maryland Attorney General’s Office, which represents local prosecutors’ offices at the appellate level, filed papers backing Young Lee’s claim that the Sept. 19 hearing was “legally deficient” and ought to be redone. It’s not clear if the attorney general supports the collusion claim.
It is out of the ordinary for the attorney general’s office to take a stance at odds with the local prosecution, with recently sworn-in Attorney General Anthony Brown appearing to take the stance his predecessor Brian Frosh took.
Mosby, standing outside the city courthouse in the immediate aftermath of Syed’s release from custody, accused Frosh’s office of being complicit in the concealing of evidence, something Frosh vehemently denied.