In part two of the Intercept's interview with Urick, the former prosecutor runs point-by-point down the common criticism of the state's case. It was totally normal, he says, to get Jay in contact with an attorney, and not to test the DNA recovered at the crime scene. Also, Urick claims, there was no way that the prosecution's case could have employed Islamophobic stereotypes: "This was well before September 11. Nobody had any misgivings about someone being Muslim back then."
In part two of the Intercept's interview with Urick, the former prosecutor runs point-by-point down the common criticism of the state's case. It was totally normal, he says, to get Jay in contact with an attorney, and not to test the DNA recovered at the crime scene. Also, Urick claims, there was no way that the prosecution's case could have employed Islamophobic stereotypes: "This was well before September 11. Nobody had any misgivings about someone being Muslim back then."
In part two of the Intercept's interview with Urick, the former prosecutor runs point-by-point down the common criticism of the state's case. It was totally normal, he says, to get Jay in contact with an attorney, and not to test the DNA recovered at the crime scene. Also, Urick claims, there was no way that the prosecution's case could have employed Islamophobic stereotypes: "This was well before September 11. Nobody had any misgivings about someone being Muslim back then."
Well that's complete and utter bullshit.
YUP!! I remember the OKC Bombings and everyone speculating the bomber was Muslim.
Post by downtoearth on Jan 27, 2015 13:58:25 GMT -5
So, I know that SK debunked the states' timeline and Jay basically collaborated that the timeline the state had was wrong in his interview, so what does Asia seeing Adnan afterschool that day really do for him? Is it just that the lawyer and state ignored that fact that is in question or would it really help since now we know that the state's timeline is wrong also?
So, I know that SK debunked the states' timeline and Jay basically collaborated that the timeline the state had was wrong in his interview, so what does Asia seeing Adnan afterschool that day really do for him? Is it just that the lawyer and state ignored that fact that is in question or would it really help since now we know that the state's timeline is wrong also?
Right. She supports the claim that Adnan had ineffective assistance of counsel. Because Asia had evidence that directly countered the state's case, the lawyer should have at the very least spoken to her. Asia could have had a photo of her and Adnan standing in front of a clock holding that day's newspaper for all she knew. Whether or not Asia's testimony was credible and exculpatory is a question for the jury.
So, I know that SK debunked the states' timeline and Jay basically collaborated that the timeline the state had was wrong in his interview, so what does Asia seeing Adnan afterschool that day really do for him? Is it just that the lawyer and state ignored that fact that is in question or would it really help since now we know that the state's timeline is wrong also?
Right. She supports the claim that Adnan had ineffective assistance of counsel. Because Asia had evidence that directly countered the state's case, the lawyer should have at the very least spoken to her. Asia could have had a photo of her and Adnan standing in front of a clock holding that day's newspaper for all she knew. Whether or not Asia's testimony was credible and exculpatory is a question for the jury.
Post by lyssbobiss, Command, B613 on Jan 27, 2015 16:00:49 GMT -5
Oh I didn't realize anti-Muslim sentiment ONLY occurred after 2001. Because god knows all of the slurs about middle eastern people didn't exist at all before then. I mean, we definitely weren't at war with other Middle Eastern countries within the past 20 years or anything.
"This prick is asking for someone here to bring him to task Somebody give me some dirt on this vacuous mass so we can at last unmask him I'll pull the trigger on it, someone load the gun and cock it While we were all watching, he got Washington in his pocket."
Right. She supports the claim that Adnan had ineffective assistance of counsel. Because Asia had evidence that directly countered the state's case, the lawyer should have at the very least spoken to her. Asia could have had a photo of her and Adnan standing in front of a clock holding that day's newspaper for all she knew. Whether or not Asia's testimony was credible and exculpatory is a question for the jury.
Unless she (the lawyer) knew Adnan was guilty.
See I keep coming back to this. I have this feeling that Gutierrez knew that Adnan was guilty and that is why she had confusion and madness in her methods. I mean, he also found NO fault in her ways looking back from 2014 to 1999 and so I think he knew, she knew also. Does that make sense? She might be the only one who really knew and took it to her grave, which is why Adnan was/is still loyal to her.
Oh I didn't realize anti-Muslim sentiment ONLY occurred after 2001. Because god knows all of the slurs about middle eastern people didn't exist at all before then. I mean, we definitely weren't already at war with other Middle Eastern countries.
Yeah, when my oldest son, who is studying wars a lot right now, realized that I was around during the Gulf War (aka Operation Desert Storm) in 1990- 1991, he had lots of questions about what we did during wartime. But I must have had my years crossed b/c that was before 2001 or even 1999 when Hae was killed and nobody used racial slurs about people from the middle east or Muslims during that conflict. Hmmmm....
She was considered one of the best criminal defense attorneys in the city. I don't think Adnan had ineffective counsel. I think she had her reasons for why she did or didn't do the things that she did.
She was considered one of the best criminal defense attorneys in the city. I don't think Adnan had ineffective counsel. I think she had her reasons for why she did or didn't do the things that she did.
She wasn't ineffective? Wasn't she disbarred for screwing over people and misusing their money?
She was considered one of the best criminal defense attorneys in the city. I don't think Adnan had ineffective counsel. I think she had her reasons for why she did or didn't do the things that she did.
She wasn't ineffective? Wasn't she disbarred for screwing over people and misusing their money?
Ineffective =\= mismanaging money.
But yes she was disbarred sometime in the 2000s for mismanaging money. Again, that had nothing to do with whether she botched *this* trial.
She wasn't ineffective? Wasn't she disbarred for screwing over people and misusing their money?
Ineffective =\= mismanaging money.
But yes she was disbarred sometime in the 2000s for mismanaging money. Again, that had nothing to do with whether she botched *this* trial.
In her mismanaging money she wasn't performing the actions she said she would for said funds. I never said she botched this trial, and I realize she was once considered a great attorney, however she turned to shit. I will freely admit I don't entirely remember if she turned to shit during Adnans trial but I vaguely remember her demanding money from his parents like she did that other family mentioned.
Short of someone else confessing there isn't much that will convince me that Adnan didn't kill that young woman.
I am more and more like this since walking away and reading more. I was very sympathetic in the first 6 episodes to Adnan. I am turning more and more angry that someone, mostly Adnan, killed Hae over such menial high school crap. If it's as simple as that, I'm so angry that a young male can just kill his ex-girlfriend with his hands. What is wrong that at 16/17 you can just do this, but seem normal to your parents and friends? And why would Jay not call the cops from his grandma's house and say, "my friend is going to bury his girlfriend that he killed later and you should follow us!" His moral compass is wrong also - you can't just do that! I want to feel like people are mostly good, not terrible, misogynistic murderers by Senior year of high school.
But yes she was disbarred sometime in the 2000s for mismanaging money. Again, that had nothing to do with whether she botched *this* trial.
In her mismanaging money she wasn't performing the actions she said she would for said funds. I never said she botched this trial, and I realize she was once considered a great attorney, however she turned to shit. I will freely admit I don't entirely remember if she turned to shit during Adnans trial but I vaguely remember her demanding money from his parents like she did that other family mentioned.
She was disbarred for a different case. One where she demanded money to hire and expert witness and then never did. I don't think she did this in Adnan's case. In any case the courts have already ruled on this matter against Adnan. They found that she had her reasons for what she did or didn't as it related Adnan's case.
Right. She supports the claim that Adnan had ineffective assistance of counsel. Because Asia had evidence that directly countered the state's case, the lawyer should have at the very least spoken to her. Asia could have had a photo of her and Adnan standing in front of a clock holding that day's newspaper for all she knew. Whether or not Asia's testimony was credible and exculpatory is a question for the jury.
Unless she (the lawyer) knew Adnan was guilty.
Even if she knew he was guilty she had a duty to do her best to defend him and get him off which means calling a witness who brings the prosecution timeline into question. That's why there is attorney client privilege. If she couldn't do that her duty is to resign from the case.
Even if she knew he was guilty she had a duty to do her best to defend him and get him off which means calling a witness who brings the prosecution timeline into question. That's why there is attorney client privilege. If she couldn't do that her duty is to resign from the case.
You are right that she owed a duty to Adnan but wrong to apply that duty to calling a witness who could potentially harm your defendant. In other words, maybe doing her best meant NOT calling this person to the stand.
Even if she knew he was guilty she had a duty to do her best to defend him and get him off which means calling a witness who brings the prosecution timeline into question. That's why there is attorney client privilege. If she couldn't do that her duty is to resign from the case.
You are right that she owed a duty to Adnan but wrong to apply that duty to calling a witness who could potentially harm your defendant. In other words, maybe doing her best meant NOT calling this person to the stand.
But isn't not even investigating a potential alibi witness at least suspect behavior? I'm not saying it rises to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel, but it makes me raise my eyebrows.
Even if she knew he was guilty she had a duty to do her best to defend him and get him off which means calling a witness who brings the prosecution timeline into question. That's why there is attorney client privilege. If she couldn't do that her duty is to resign from the case.
Not if she knew for a fact that said witness was lying.
Not sure exactly what MD's rule is since the specifics in dealing with perjured testimony vary from state to state but your duty to your client does not include supporting perjury.
Even if she knew he was guilty she had a duty to do her best to defend him and get him off which means calling a witness who brings the prosecution timeline into question. That's why there is attorney client privilege. If she couldn't do that her duty is to resign from the case.
Not if she knew for a fact that said witness was lying.
Not sure exactly what MD's rule is since the specifics in dealing with perjured testimony vary from state to state but your duty to your client does not include supporting perjury.
I guess I don't know how she could know for a fact that Asia was lying if she never even contacted her. That's what sticks with me.
I mean, if we want to talk about perjury, someone should look at the prosecutors. Jay changed a bunch of details between the first trial and the second. So at least one version isn't true.
You are right that she owed a duty to Adnan but wrong to apply that duty to calling a witness who could potentially harm your defendant. In other words, maybe doing her best meant NOT calling this person to the stand.
But isn't not even investigating a potential alibi witness at least suspect behavior? I'm not saying it rises to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel, but it makes me raise my eyebrows.
If you knew your client murdered someone are you really going to investigate a person who says otherwise? (I actually don't do this type of law so I don't know the answer.)
I think this also explains Adnan's emotions when Serial told him they found Asia in what they thought was going to be a big moment but turned into a shrug from Adnan.
In her mismanaging money she wasn't performing the actions she said she would for said funds. I never said she botched this trial, and I realize she was once considered a great attorney, however she turned to shit. I will freely admit I don't entirely remember if she turned to shit during Adnans trial but I vaguely remember her demanding money from his parents like she did that other family mentioned.
She was disbarred for a different case. One where she demanded money to hire and expert witness and then never did. I don't think she did this in Adnan's case. In any case the courts have already ruled on this matter against Adnan. They found that she had her reasons for what she did or didn't as it related Adnan's case.
At the time there were about a dozen clients who had complaints against her. But she willingly consented to the disbarment so those claims were never investigated. She also had a client in 1995 whose lawyer claimed in 2001 that she failed to disclose a plea deal. By 2001 Cristina couldn't practice anyway because of her MS. It's not inconceivable that her health affected her ability in 99. There are so many positive comments about Cristina when she was in good health that I believe she was a great lawyer. But she definitely had issues at the end.
But isn't not even investigating a potential alibi witness at least suspect behavior? I'm not saying it rises to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel, but it makes me raise my eyebrows.
If you knew your client murdered someone are you really going to investigate a person who says otherwise? (I actually don't do this type of law so I don't know the answer.)
I think this also explains Adnan's emotions when Serial told him they found Asia in what they thought was going to be a big moment but turned into a shrug from Adnan.
I mean, if you're actually trying to create reasonable doubt, I think sure, you investigate. I'm not saying you put the person on the stand if you wind up with reason to believe you'd be suborning perjury. But you should investigate all reasonable leads.
Given the lack of physical evidence linking Adnan to the crime, I don't think his attorney could have known for certain that he's guilty unless he confessed to her.
I'm not convinced he's not guilty, but this seems like something that should have been investigated as possible reasonable doubt.
If you knew your client murdered someone are you really going to investigate a person who says otherwise? (I actually don't do this type of law so I don't know the answer.)
I think this also explains Adnan's emotions when Serial told him they found Asia in what they thought was going to be a big moment but turned into a shrug from Adnan.
I mean, if you're actually trying to create reasonable doubt, I think sure, you investigate. I'm not saying you put the person on the stand if you wind up with reason to believe you'd be suborning perjury. But you should investigate all reasonable leads.
Given the lack of physical evidence linking Adnan to the crime, I don't think his attorney could have known for certain that he's guilty unless he confessed to her.
I'm not convinced he's not guilty, but this seems like something that should have been investigated as possible reasonable doubt.
When I speculate that she knew it would only be because he confessed to her. Because you're right, how else would she know?
But isn't not even investigating a potential alibi witness at least suspect behavior? I'm not saying it rises to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel, but it makes me raise my eyebrows.
If you knew your client murdered someone are you really going to investigate a person who says otherwise? (I actually don't do this type of law so I don't know the answer.)
I think this also explains Adnan's emotions when Serial told him they found Asia in what they thought was going to be a big moment but turned into a shrug from Adnan.
she did try to argue Adnan wasn't guilty and Asia's testimony doesn't even claim Adnan is innocent. It just debunks the state's timeline. The only conceivable reason I can see for not following up with Asia would be if she knew Asia was lying. I don't get how she would know that for sure without even interviewing her. Seems like it's a big deal even now.
If you knew your client murdered someone are you really going to investigate a person who says otherwise? (I actually don't do this type of law so I don't know the answer.)
I think this also explains Adnan's emotions when Serial told him they found Asia in what they thought was going to be a big moment but turned into a shrug from Adnan.
she did try to argue Adnan wasn't guilty and Asia's testimony doesn't even claim Adnan is innocent. It just debunks the state's timeline. The only conceivable reason I can see for not following up with Asia would be if she knew Asia was lying. I don't get how she would know that for sure without even interviewing her. Seems like it's a big deal even now.
The only conceivable reason *I* see for not following up with Asia is because someone fucked up, whether intentionally or not. The law clerk (or associate, I can't remember) takes the note. Maybe he didn't pass it on.
And remember Asia's boyfriend saw Adnan, too. That's TWO alibi witnesses.