Adnan Syed's Case Study
On February 25, 2000 Adnan Syed’s world came crumbling down around him. Adnan was convicted to life plus thirty years for the murder of his high school ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee. Although Adnan was convicted, he is not guilty. The prosecution's case was shaky and was built around one witnesses constantly changing testimony. The witness was Jay Wilds, the neighbourhood drug dealer and a former schoolmate of Adnan’s. As well as the prosecution's main witness being unreliable, the cell phone tower data that they used to convict Adnan says on the cover sheet that the cell phone data from incoming calls can't be used to reliably and precisely locate a cell phone. Lastly, the autopsy report of Hae Min Lee showed fixed frontal lividity, the phenomenon
…show more content…
But, what the defense failed to bring to the court's attention is that on a fax cover sheet discovered by Susan Simpson, AT&T clearly states that incoming call information is not reliable for location of the phone, negating the prosecution's use of it being a tracking device for Adnan. Those AT&T records said Syed’s phone “pinged” a cellphone tower covering the park and nearby areas during calls he received at 7:09 p.m. and 7:16 p.m. on 13 January 1999. The calls were described by Syed’s current attorney as “the pillar of the state’s case” against him. In a court motion filed last August, Syed’s attorney, C Justin Brown, said the disclaimer should have barred prosecutors from using the cellphone records. Brown said the misuse of the records in the face of the “unambiguous warning” on AT&T’s cover sheet – and the failure of Syed’s original lawyer to do anything about this, amounted to prosecutorial misconduct and a denial of Syed’s right to due process. Although this evidence seems crucial to the case, Adnan's lawyer never brought this up at trial, one may think that his lawyer may not bring the evidence to trial is because the state didn’t present them the evidence. Also, in Jay’s interview with Intercept he states that the burial took place at midnight, making any significance the cell records had in placing Adnan near the burial site at seven p.m.
But, what the defense failed to bring to the court's attention is that on a fax cover sheet discovered by Susan Simpson, AT&T clearly states that incoming call information is not reliable for location of the phone, negating the prosecution's use of it being a tracking device for Adnan. Those AT&T records said Syed’s phone “pinged” a cellphone tower covering the park and nearby areas during calls he received at 7:09 p.m. and 7:16 p.m. on 13 January 1999. The calls were described by Syed’s current attorney as “the pillar of the state’s case” against him. In a court motion filed last August, Syed’s attorney, C Justin Brown, said the disclaimer should have barred prosecutors from using the cellphone records. Brown said the misuse of the records in the face of the “unambiguous warning” on AT&T’s cover sheet – and the failure of Syed’s original lawyer to do anything about this, amounted to prosecutorial misconduct and a denial of Syed’s right to due process. Although this evidence seems crucial to the case, Adnan's lawyer never brought this up at trial, one may think that his lawyer may not bring the evidence to trial is because the state didn’t present them the evidence. Also, in Jay’s interview with Intercept he states that the burial took place at midnight, making any significance the cell records had in placing Adnan near the burial site at seven p.m.