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.
When serial contacted him he said he had no recollection.
I can think of another reason why she wouldn't call her: if Adnan detailed to Gutierez the events of the day and there is no way Asia could have actually seen him that day, there would be no need to talk to her about it.
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.
When serial contacted him he said he had no recollection.
I can think of another reason why she wouldn't call her: if Adnan detailed to Gutierez the events of the day and there is no way Asia could have actually seen him that day, there would be no need to talk to her about it.
I still don't think that's a good enough reason not to contact Asia. Adnan I Don't Remember 1999 may be mistaken about his recollection.
When serial contacted him he said he had no recollection.
I can think of another reason why she wouldn't call her: if Adnan detailed to Gutierez the events of the day and there is no way Asia could have actually seen him that day, there would be no need to talk to her about it.
I still don't think that's a good enough reason not to contact Asia. Adnan I Don't Remember 1999 may be mistaken about his recollection.
The point is that there may be a logical reason for Gutierez NOT to investigate Asia such that she didn't commit ineffective assistance of counsel. And actually this is what the courts have always found.
starlily can you comment here? I think Gutierrez had to contact Asia. It's unethical not to, yes? I mean....you have to vigorously defend, no? Even if you think your client is guilty, right? Anything less is ineffective assistance, I thought.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
I still don't think that's a good enough reason not to contact Asia. Adnan I Don't Remember 1999 may be mistaken about his recollection.
The point is that there may be a logical reason for Gutierez NOT to investigate Asia such that she didn't commit ineffective assistance of counsel. And actually this is what the courts have always found.
the courts found this because the courts were under the impression that Asia recanted - so they were saying it would not have mattered if Asia had been contacted since the outcome wouldn't have changed. Adnan might win this latest appeal because Asia is now saying she never recanted. Her supposed recantation happened after Adnan's original trial IIRC. I'm unaware of any court agreeing that Cristina had a legit reason not to have contacted Asia during the original trial.
starlily can you comment here? I think Gutierrez had to contact Asia. It's unethical not to, yes? I mean....you have to vigorously defend, no? Even if you think your client is guilty, right? Anything less is ineffective assistance, I thought.
I don't know because I still haven't listened to this, nor have I kept up with all the ensuing articles. But I do think that other people in this thread have given some plausible explanations as to why.
starlily can you comment here? I think Gutierrez had to contact Asia. It's unethical not to, yes? I mean....you have to vigorously defend, no? Even if you think your client is guilty, right? Anything less is ineffective assistance, I thought.
I don't know because I still haven't listened to this, nor have I kept up with all the ensuing articles. But I do think that other people in this thread have given some plausible explanations as to why.
I thought he had an appeal based on IAC denied?
I think there are plausible reasons, but I'm wondering if a plausible reason is that Gutierrez thought he was guilty which is why she didn't reach out to Asia. On its face, that seems unethical.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
Former criminal defense attorney checking in here.
First an experienced criminal defense attorney is not going to ask their client " hey did you do this murder I just want to know. ". You don't want to know. It makes creating a defense much harder. If a client starts confessing you shut that down. you say I don't want to know those details.
Second the only way that she would be suborning perjury By putting Asia on the stand is if Adnan came to her and said "by the way I did this murder. Good news though, I found somebody willing to take the stand and lie for me and create a fake alibi." In that scenario most attorneys would withdraw from the case. Not just ignore potential defense witnesses.
Also LOL to the implication above that the attorney, an experienced criminal defense attorney, would not work as hard because she knew her client was guilty. You don't get to be a highly paid sought after private criminal lawyer by only fighting for the innocent ones.
Former criminal defense attorney checking in here.
First an experienced criminal defense attorney is not going to ask their client " hey did you do this murder I just want to know. ". You don't want to know. It makes creating a defense much harder. If a client starts confessing you shut that down. you say I don't want to know those details.
Second the only way that she would be suborning perjury By putting Asia on the stand is if Adnan came to her and said "by the way I did this murder. Good news though, I found somebody willing to take the stand and lie for me and create a fake alibi." In that scenario most attorneys would withdraw from the case. Not just ignore potential defense witnesses.
Also LOL to the implication above that the attorney, an experienced criminal defense attorney, would not work as hard because she knew her client was guilty. You don't get to be a highly paid sought after private criminal lawyer by only fighting for the innocent ones.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
starlily can you comment here? I think Gutierrez had to contact Asia. It's unethical not to, yes? I mean....you have to vigorously defend, no? Even if you think your client is guilty, right? Anything less is ineffective assistance, I thought.
Former criminal defense attorney checking in here.
First an experienced criminal defense attorney is not going to ask their client " hey did you do this murder I just want to know. ". You don't want to know. It makes creating a defense much harder. If a client starts confessing you shut that down. you say I don't want to know those details.
Second the only way that she would be suborning perjury By putting Asia on the stand is if Adnan came to her and said "by the way I did this murder. Good news though, I found somebody willing to take the stand and lie for me and create a fake alibi." In that scenario most attorneys would withdraw from the case. Not just ignore potential defense witnesses.
Also LOL to the implication above that the attorney, an experienced criminal defense attorney, would not work as hard because she knew her client was guilty. You don't get to be a highly paid sought after private criminal lawyer by only fighting for the innocent ones.
I had a longer response but it got eaten, with the gist being:
(1) no one is saying that Gutierez said "hey Adnan, give me the skinny. Did you kill the girl?"
(2) There are other reasons not to put Asia on the stand other than perjury.
(3) I don't think anyone here, certainly not me, is suggesting that she didn't work hard on this case "because she knew Adnan was guilty." That seems to be big misreading of this discussion.
Post by tacosforlife on Jan 28, 2015 11:36:09 GMT -5
There may be other reasons not to put Asia on the stand, but I'm having a hard time with not investigating, not even contacting Asia. I think that's where a lot of us are hung up.
There MAY have been a reason not to contact Asia, but I'm not clear what that was.
It's pretty clear that no matter if Adnan did it, the timing did not go down how the state said. So to ignore a potential timeline-busting witness certainly makes me raise my eyebrows.
There may be other reasons not to put Asia on the stand, but I'm having a hard time with not investigating, not even contacting Asia. I think that's where a lot of us are hung up.
There MAY have been a reason not to contact Asia, but I'm not clear what that was.
It's pretty clear that no matter if Adnan did it, the timing did not go down how the state said. So to ignore a potential timeline-busting witness certainly makes me raise my eyebrows.
Yes, yes, YES! I can think of no legitimate reason to not interview Asia and her boyfriend.
What did the note say? Wasn't there a note written by someone in CG's file indicating that the alibi didn't work or something? SK mentions it in the first episode or two.
I don't remember.
I really do want to read all the Serial transcripts.
I'm just fascinated by the state's case hinging so much on a witness who has never told the same story once. Even if Jay is telling the truth about Adnan killing her, his story leaves me with a lot of doubt because I'm just like, "Well, did it go down the way you said first? Second? In the Intercept interview? Why were your stories between the two trials different?" But I can't remember all the ways in which his story changed.
What did the note say? Wasn't there a note written by someone in CG's file indicating that the alibi didn't work or something? SK mentions it in the first episode or two.
I don't remember.
I really do want to read all the Serial transcripts.
I'm just fascinated by the state's case hinging so much on a witness who has never told the same story once. Even if Jay is telling the truth about Adnan killing her, his story leaves me with a lot of doubt because I'm just like, "Well, did it go down the way you said first? Second? In the Intercept interview? Why were your stories between the two trials different?" But I can't remember all the ways in which his story changed.
It's my understanding that there was more to the state's case than what was presented on serial.
Like was said above, and has been said time and time again: we weren't there in the courtroom. We know what we know largely from a podcast with a bias.
I really do want to read all the Serial transcripts.
I'm just fascinated by the state's case hinging so much on a witness who has never told the same story once. Even if Jay is telling the truth about Adnan killing her, his story leaves me with a lot of doubt because I'm just like, "Well, did it go down the way you said first? Second? In the Intercept interview? Why were your stories between the two trials different?" But I can't remember all the ways in which his story changed.
It's my understanding that there was more to the state's case than what was presented on serial.
Like was said above, and has been said time and time again: we weren't there in the courtroom. We know what we know largely from a podcast with a bias.
Sure. But does anybody here actually have 100 percent faith in the criminal justice system system? Study after study has shown how it's slanted against people of color.
The state's timeline didn't add up. The state claims this was some sort of honor issue tied into his identity as a Muslim when it doesn't appear he was actually all that devout. The circumstances of her body being discovered were odd. The state's star witness changed major parts of his story repeatedly. A potential alibi witness was never even contacted by a lawyer who is on record as having taken money from clients to perform tasks that were not performed.
It's my understanding that there was more to the state's case than what was presented on serial.
Like was said above, and has been said time and time again: we weren't there in the courtroom. We know what we know largely from a podcast with a bias.
Sure. But does anybody here actually have 100 percent faith in the criminal justice system system? Study after study has shown how it's slanted against people of color.
The state's timeline didn't add up. The state claims this was some sort of honor issue tied into his identity as a Muslim when it doesn't appear he was actually all that devout. The circumstances of her body being discovered were odd. The state's star witness changed major parts of his story repeatedly. A potential alibi witness was never even contacted by a lawyer who is on record as having taken money from clients to perform tasks that were not performed.
All this adds up to a lot of questions.
I have 100% faith in pretty much nothing including podcasts acting as judge, jury, defense, and prosecution.