Woodlawn Trial
There is a boy in all of your high school advanced classes. You talk to him regularly, but not quite enough to spend time together outside of school. He is what your parents would call “a good kid”, attentive, friendly, and polite. You know about his friends and his family, his activities and his interests, his grades and his religion. And you know about the end of his previous relationship. But one day, you hear rumors going around that he was convicted of first degree murder of another classmate, his ex-girlfriend, to be exact. This could never happen, right? Well, in Baltimore, Maryland, this was a reality for many students attending Woodlawn High School in 1999. However, his trial did not provide sufficient evidence to incriminate him.
…show more content…
Adnan Syed, convicted of first-degree murder for killing his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee, in Baltimore 1999, could not have committed this atrocious crime based on the inconclusive evidence leaving reasonable doubt, the timeline where the state claims Lee was killed at 2:36 p.m, and the reasoning behind the evidence the State used to incriminate Adnan. In the case involving the murder of Hae Min Lee, Adnan Syed was wrongfully convicted, since the evidence provided leaves a reasonable doubt that Adnan is guilty. The United States court system rules by the following statement: “there cannot be a conviction unless the proof shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” (United States, Supreme Court). The first faulty piece of information is the lack of depth to the evidence presented, which is especially shown by the failure to test the DNA samples found at the scene of the crime (Koenig, Leakin Park). Adnan did wish to have the available DNA tested to clear his name; however, his lawyer, Christina Gutierrez, argued that this should not be tested because if his DNA matched that found at the scene of the crime, the probability that he would be released from prison at all would be virtually impossible. In fact, Gutierrez made many of the trial decisions for Adnan, including the decision in which to not testify in his trial (To Be Suspected). In doing this, Adnan was forced to stay mute throughout nearly five weeks worth of trials, unable to further explain his story and testimony. Finally, the State surrounded their entire story around the testimony of Jay Wilds, a classmate and acquaintance of Adnan. who may not be the most reliable source of information. From each time that he is questioned by authorities, his story changes majorly. As Sarah states, “People lie in court under oath all the time. Witnesses lie. Lawyers lie. Police lie” (The Deal With Jay); therefore, can we rely completely on the testimony of one teenager who seems to forget major details dealing with the day of the crime? In the end, the inconclusive and unreliable evidence presented, which leaves reasonable doubt, should not have led to the conviction of Adnan Syed. At the end of the trial, the state decided that Lee was killed at precisely 2.36 p.m; however, this is nearly impossible based on the following evidence. When Sarah Koenig and Dana Chivvis test the possibility of this timeline, it takes them exactly twenty two minutes and two seconds to travel from Woodlawn High School to the Best Buy parking lot at the same time of day Adnan would have driven this route (Route Talk). Everything would have had to go exactly as planned for his 2:36 p.m. call to have happened after Hae’s death. Even then, this possibility seems farfetched. Let’s say this was possible, but the story becomes even more unstable when the idea of the phone booth in the Best Buy parking lot comes up. According to Laura Estrada Sandoval, a friend of Jay, Adnan, and Stephanie McPherson, Jay’s girlfriend, states “there were never any phones around the Best Buy” (To Be Suspected). She admitted to have stolen CDs from that particular Best Buy quite often, making her very aware of her surroundings and realizing that there was, in fact, not a payphone at Best Buy. Without a payphone at Best Buy, Adnan would not be able to call Jay, since Jay supposedly had Adnan’s cell phone at that time. The State did not have sufficient evidence to prove Adnan was able to kill Hae Min Lee by precisely 2:36 p.m. on January 13; furthermore, Adnan Syed should not have been convicted of the first degree murder of Hae Min Lee.
The evidence that the State concentrated on did not seem to fully outline the main points and occurrences throughout the Trial.
First, multiple students, including Asia McLean testified to have seen Adnan at the library after school on January 13, 1999. In fact, Asia admitted to having an insignificant conversation with him, probably around 2:30 p.m (The Alibi). If Adnan was spotted at the library during the time the state says Hae was killed, he could not have been Hae’s killer. Also, while looking at the relationship between Hae and Adnan, Hae’s diary describes Adnan as “the sweetest guy” (The Breakup). Likewise, students from Woodlawn High School also vouch for Adnan’s character. Krista testifies, “it’s just, he’s a normal, kind person” (To Be Suspected). Additionally, Adnan’s worrisome call to Detective O’Shea after learning Hae’s body had been found in Leakin Park was also seemingly ignored during the trial (To Be Suspected). Instead of concentrating on those pieces of evidence, the state focused on certain facts that did seem to frame Adnan for this crime. His fingerprints were found on a map in the backseat of Hae’s car. Although this may look incriminating for Adnan, his relationship with Hae should be enough evidence to prove that he had been in her car many, many times before she was murdered. This gives Adnan a reason as to why his fingerprints would be found in Hae’s car. Also, Adnan’s inability to remember details of his day from January 13, 1999, makes jurors see Adnan as guilty of the crime at hand, since he is unable to tell them where he was and what he was doing on that afternoon. However, this piece of evidence can be explained. Can you tell me exactly what you did on March 23, 2017? Chances are you probably can’t. Therefore, in Adnan’s case, since he did not murder Hae, nothing monumental happened throughout that day, causing him to forget many details of his activity that afternoon. In the end, Adnan Syed was wrongly convicted because the
evidence used against him can be explained. The case brought up by the State was strongly based on the outcome of Adnan Syed’s previous relationship with Hae Min Lee. They believed Adnan was severely heartbroken following the end of their relationship, giving him a motive to kill Hae. Another focal point of the state was the letter that Hae had previously written to Adnan following their breakup, which states “I’m really getting annoyed that this situation is going the way it is, you know, people break up all the time. Your life is not going to end. You’ll move on and I’ll move on. But apparently you don’t respect me enough to accept my decision” (The Case Against Adnan Syed). However, many relationships end in hard feelings, but as time goes on, people get over it. Similarly, as time went on, Adnan does simply get over it. In fact, Adnan and Aisha Pittman, his classmate, pass notes during class on the back of this specific letter, joking and making fun of Hae. Adnan’s friends testify that he was okay with the end of the relationship and that Hae and Adnan continued to be friends. Basing your case on the hard feelings after a high school breakup is not significant enough to confine a teenager to life behind bars, especially when the evidence does leave several unexplainable facts and information that do not line up with the story that has been created.
Adnan Syed was wrongly convicted of first-degree murder of his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee, on January 13, 1999. The evidence presented by authorities throughout the process of the trial leaves many gaps to be filled with reasonable doubt. The State’s timeline of the crime is built around the 2:36 p.m. call following the strangulation of Hae in the Best Buy parking lot, which did not contain a payphone to place this call from. Also, there is plenty of overlooked evidence that the State used to incriminate Adnan. There is no possibility that Adnan Syed could have played a part in the murder of Hae Min Lee on January 13, 1999, in Baltimore, Maryland. Therefore, maybe you do know him. Maybe he is the “good kid” everyone believes. Or maybe he is the ruthless killer that the State has made him out to be. The world may never know.
Adnan Syed, convicted of first-degree murder for killing his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee, in Baltimore 1999, could not have committed this atrocious crime based on the inconclusive evidence leaving reasonable doubt, the timeline where the state claims Lee was killed at 2:36 p.m, and the reasoning behind the evidence the State used to incriminate Adnan. In the case involving the murder of Hae Min Lee, Adnan Syed was wrongfully convicted, since the evidence provided leaves a reasonable doubt that Adnan is guilty. The United States court system rules by the following statement: “there cannot be a conviction unless the proof shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” (United States, Supreme Court). The first faulty piece of information is the lack of depth to the evidence presented, which is especially shown by the failure to test the DNA samples found at the scene of the crime (Koenig, Leakin Park). Adnan did wish to have the available DNA tested to clear his name; however, his lawyer, Christina Gutierrez, argued that this should not be tested because if his DNA matched that found at the scene of the crime, the probability that he would be released from prison at all would be virtually impossible. In fact, Gutierrez made many of the trial decisions for Adnan, including the decision in which to not testify in his trial (To Be Suspected). In doing this, Adnan was forced to stay mute throughout nearly five weeks worth of trials, unable to further explain his story and testimony. Finally, the State surrounded their entire story around the testimony of Jay Wilds, a classmate and acquaintance of Adnan. who may not be the most reliable source of information. From each time that he is questioned by authorities, his story changes majorly. As Sarah states, “People lie in court under oath all the time. Witnesses lie. Lawyers lie. Police lie” (The Deal With Jay); therefore, can we rely completely on the testimony of one teenager who seems to forget major details dealing with the day of the crime? In the end, the inconclusive and unreliable evidence presented, which leaves reasonable doubt, should not have led to the conviction of Adnan Syed. At the end of the trial, the state decided that Lee was killed at precisely 2.36 p.m; however, this is nearly impossible based on the following evidence. When Sarah Koenig and Dana Chivvis test the possibility of this timeline, it takes them exactly twenty two minutes and two seconds to travel from Woodlawn High School to the Best Buy parking lot at the same time of day Adnan would have driven this route (Route Talk). Everything would have had to go exactly as planned for his 2:36 p.m. call to have happened after Hae’s death. Even then, this possibility seems farfetched. Let’s say this was possible, but the story becomes even more unstable when the idea of the phone booth in the Best Buy parking lot comes up. According to Laura Estrada Sandoval, a friend of Jay, Adnan, and Stephanie McPherson, Jay’s girlfriend, states “there were never any phones around the Best Buy” (To Be Suspected). She admitted to have stolen CDs from that particular Best Buy quite often, making her very aware of her surroundings and realizing that there was, in fact, not a payphone at Best Buy. Without a payphone at Best Buy, Adnan would not be able to call Jay, since Jay supposedly had Adnan’s cell phone at that time. The State did not have sufficient evidence to prove Adnan was able to kill Hae Min Lee by precisely 2:36 p.m. on January 13; furthermore, Adnan Syed should not have been convicted of the first degree murder of Hae Min Lee.
The evidence that the State concentrated on did not seem to fully outline the main points and occurrences throughout the Trial.
First, multiple students, including Asia McLean testified to have seen Adnan at the library after school on January 13, 1999. In fact, Asia admitted to having an insignificant conversation with him, probably around 2:30 p.m (The Alibi). If Adnan was spotted at the library during the time the state says Hae was killed, he could not have been Hae’s killer. Also, while looking at the relationship between Hae and Adnan, Hae’s diary describes Adnan as “the sweetest guy” (The Breakup). Likewise, students from Woodlawn High School also vouch for Adnan’s character. Krista testifies, “it’s just, he’s a normal, kind person” (To Be Suspected). Additionally, Adnan’s worrisome call to Detective O’Shea after learning Hae’s body had been found in Leakin Park was also seemingly ignored during the trial (To Be Suspected). Instead of concentrating on those pieces of evidence, the state focused on certain facts that did seem to frame Adnan for this crime. His fingerprints were found on a map in the backseat of Hae’s car. Although this may look incriminating for Adnan, his relationship with Hae should be enough evidence to prove that he had been in her car many, many times before she was murdered. This gives Adnan a reason as to why his fingerprints would be found in Hae’s car. Also, Adnan’s inability to remember details of his day from January 13, 1999, makes jurors see Adnan as guilty of the crime at hand, since he is unable to tell them where he was and what he was doing on that afternoon. However, this piece of evidence can be explained. Can you tell me exactly what you did on March 23, 2017? Chances are you probably can’t. Therefore, in Adnan’s case, since he did not murder Hae, nothing monumental happened throughout that day, causing him to forget many details of his activity that afternoon. In the end, Adnan Syed was wrongly convicted because the
evidence used against him can be explained. The case brought up by the State was strongly based on the outcome of Adnan Syed’s previous relationship with Hae Min Lee. They believed Adnan was severely heartbroken following the end of their relationship, giving him a motive to kill Hae. Another focal point of the state was the letter that Hae had previously written to Adnan following their breakup, which states “I’m really getting annoyed that this situation is going the way it is, you know, people break up all the time. Your life is not going to end. You’ll move on and I’ll move on. But apparently you don’t respect me enough to accept my decision” (The Case Against Adnan Syed). However, many relationships end in hard feelings, but as time goes on, people get over it. Similarly, as time went on, Adnan does simply get over it. In fact, Adnan and Aisha Pittman, his classmate, pass notes during class on the back of this specific letter, joking and making fun of Hae. Adnan’s friends testify that he was okay with the end of the relationship and that Hae and Adnan continued to be friends. Basing your case on the hard feelings after a high school breakup is not significant enough to confine a teenager to life behind bars, especially when the evidence does leave several unexplainable facts and information that do not line up with the story that has been created.
Adnan Syed was wrongly convicted of first-degree murder of his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee, on January 13, 1999. The evidence presented by authorities throughout the process of the trial leaves many gaps to be filled with reasonable doubt. The State’s timeline of the crime is built around the 2:36 p.m. call following the strangulation of Hae in the Best Buy parking lot, which did not contain a payphone to place this call from. Also, there is plenty of overlooked evidence that the State used to incriminate Adnan. There is no possibility that Adnan Syed could have played a part in the murder of Hae Min Lee on January 13, 1999, in Baltimore, Maryland. Therefore, maybe you do know him. Maybe he is the “good kid” everyone believes. Or maybe he is the ruthless killer that the State has made him out to be. The world may never know.