Adnan Syed Case

Whether one particular person happens to be a defendant, a witness, a friend, or even just an acquaintance, murder cases weigh heavily on everyone involved. Huge amounts of evidence must be analyzed, people must be interviewed, research must be done, and a case must be made. Ultimately, all this work comes down to one decision: convict or acquit. The case of Adnan Syed v. State of Maryland is no exception. Syed, at the age of nineteen, was convicted of the murder of his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee. He was sentenced to life in prison, plus thirty years. However, from the day the case ended, people have had doubts about the verdict. Holes in the state’s argument slowly became more apparent. For example, the state placed a massive amount of trust

In the past years we have seen many riots and debates over the racism and inequalities in our criminal justice system. We have heard story after story, and watched video after video of police brutality and racism in America. We saw the unfair outcome of the Zimmerman and Treyvon Martin case. When George Zimmerman followed and fatally wounded Treyvon Martin, a seventeen year old African American boy who was walking around the neighborhood, just because he looked suspicious to him. In 2014, we saw the riots in Ferguson, Missouri after the fatal shooting of Michael Brown by a white police officer, sparking a debate over the

Imagine walking down your neighborhood block on a beautiful Sunday morning. All that is at the forefront of your thoughts is getting to Blockbuster and turning in a work application, for purposes of purchasing your favorite musician’s new album. But now you are stopped by a police officer accusing you of murder, placed in a cop car, and driven to the scene where you have been identified as a killer. This is precisely what happened to the young, 15-year-old Brenton Butler depicted in the Academy Award winning documentary: Murder on a Sunday Morning, which details the trial of Brenton v. Florida.

Injustice for all appears to be the recent motto of the American justice system in the previous years. This system, increasingly known, infamously, for the wrongful incarcerations of many innocent citizens is in large part due to prejudice and a lack of due diligence by society 's finest, the police. Police departments’ focus on making the collar often leads to the use of various forms of torture such as mental, emotional, and even physical coercion. Errors of fact fail to be discovered, and wrongful convictions happen to hundreds of innocent citizens such as William Dillon, who had served 27 years for a crime he did not commit. William Dillon is among those innocent citizens that the American justice system has failed. The dawn of August 17, 1981 a man by the name of James Dvorak was found at Canova Beach beaten to death. The police department was only able to find one article of evidence, a witness, a perjured testimony, and fabricated evidence that pointed towards Dillon. From these William Dillon was convicted due to a bloody yellow shirt found at the crime scene, a half blind man, a false testimony from a past lover and phony evidence fabricated by the police and their consultants.

In 2008 through 2011, America fallowed the Casey Anthony murder trial extraordinarily closely (Rawlings, 2011). This case had all of the needed elements to create a one of the most notable trials ever conducted in such a public fashion (Rawlings, 2011). The trial was put on display in fount of the entire country, with every persons feeling strongly as to guilt or innocents, with the majority swaying towered guilt (Rawlings, 2011). With such a public display and strong sentiments, the level of anger that was displayed left no room surprise when a “Not guilty.” Verdict was rendered (Rawlings, 2011).

I believe in the Presumption of innocence, one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. Adnan has been accused of a gruesome crime of his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee. There is several pieces of evidence that is held against him and several pieces of evidence has yet to be validated. The evidence is mostly he say, she say. I truly believe that Adnan is innocent but is withholding information due to memory. Adnan Syed is innocent due to the exaggeration of Jay’s confession, The best buy story, and there is no plausible cause.

The case of Adnan Syed became very popular. There are many people who know about this case. The trial convicted that Adnan had killed his ex-girlfriend. Many of Adnan’s friends believe that Adnan is not guilty. Also, many people who do not personally know Adnan and read the case about him, see he is not guilty. Other people see he might involve in the case, so he is guilty. There are many doubts about the court's decision to imprison Adnan lifetime. These doubts made this case a mystery case. Adnan may be not guilty if the jury, the prosecutor, and the detective give more importance to the case and focus deeply to take a right decision. There are many questions surrounding this mystery trial.

The double-murder trial of O.J. Simpson is surely one that will live in infamy. From the controversial “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit” phrase coined by his superstar attorney Johnnie Cochran to the jaw-dropping verdict of not guilty this case has made its mark in history. In 1994 Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ronald Goldman were found stabbed to death. With no other obvious suspects, Brown-Simpson’s husband Orenthal James Simpson became the object of law enforcement’s suspicion and was charged with the murders. The case was brought to trial

Troy Davis, a black man who was suspected as the killer of a white off-duty police officer, was executed in 2011 with insufficient evidence in the state of Georgia (Bedau). There was no physical evidence or weapon presented in the prosecution and so they had to base their judgement all from eyewitness (Bedau). His execution raised an “international outcry” due to seven out of nine eyewitnesses contradicted their trial testimony and many of them confessed that they felt pressured or threatened by the police at the time (Bedau). Troy Davis have come close to execution three times previous to his death because of the doubts that linger of his innocence (Bedau). However, after passage of a federal law in 1996, it became significantly harder for petitioners to get a hearing from judges because they have limited the amount of times they can appeal death sentence (Bedau). When Troy Davis did get a hearing, the judge required Troy to have a “proof of innocence” – an impossibly high standard according to American Civil Liberties Union and so Troy was not able to defend himself (Bedau). Even with the doubts that was present in this case, the Georgia Board of Pardons persists on executing Troy Davis (Bedau). A modern country in the 21st century like America has lots of resources to almost everything, but we still use a law system as old as time itself. Although the death penalty has been necessary in the past, it is no longer justified in the 21st century.

Recently, a dispute has arisen over the validity of Stand Your Ground laws. The shooting of 17 year old Trayvon Martin, in 2012, by George Zimmerman, has drawn attention to these laws, especially in Florida. Each state interprets the law differently, case by case, dependent on the facts. With each state having a diverse law in its book, there is seemingly no collective self-defense rule. Many argue that the Stand Your Ground laws are just and necessary, while others argue that the laws are merely an excuse for cold-blooded murder. Stand Your Ground laws are seen as a scapegoat for those willing to commit murder.

Everything about this case has my head just as muddled as the facts, or perhaps the “so-called” facts. Where do we decide that the blurred line of coincidence between the lie and the truth has been crossed? And which side does the case rest? Did the community, the family, the jury, the judge, and Hae Min Lee get justice? Or lock up an innocent man? I have always been the on-the-fence type of person, choosing sides is a game I normally don’t take part in, but this case has me wishing I could just choose a side. That it could be as simple as proven guilty (or innocent) beyond reasonable doubt. There seems to be no such thing as reasonable doubt in this case, the facts are muddled, and some things just don’t seem to add up on both sides of the matter.

Dierdre Enright, a lawyer for a similar case, proclaimed that she couldn’t help but feel concerned about racial profiling by the state in Adnan’s case (Bajor Episode Summary Two: Episode 7 - “The Opposite of the Prosecution”). On March 31, 1999, when a bevy of Muslims arrived in court with the tens of thousands of dollars they had raised, prosecutors jumped to the belief that Adnan had limitless resources. They believed that Adnan could have had help from his Muslim friends and if set to bail, he could flee the country. Prosecutors believed that it was stereotypical of Muslim men to kill their lovers and escape from the consequences because of the similarities with previous cases involving suspects of Pakistani background. Furthermore, there were other biases that were introduced by teachers and classmates who feared what Adnan was being “taught at home about his culture and religion” (Mutalib Episode Summary Five: The Best Defense is a Good Defense - Episode 10). Many teachers assumed that Adnan’s parents were evil and one even thought it was absurd that someone would date a man named Adnan Musud Syed. The opinions of these teachers and classmates were significant since they played a role in the way the jurors perceived Adnan. Although the state denied that Adnan’s race and religion played

In 1983 Glenn Ford was prosecuted for the murder along with Jake and henry Robinson, of the murder of Isadore 56-year-old watchmaker. She was murdered in a jewelry shop owned by Mr.Ford. From the start, he was innocent and pleaded for appeal or bail but was denied. Mr.Ford a black man went on trial with “an all white jury” with 2 courts appointed attorneys who didn’t specialize in criminal law and haven’t tried a case before. Judges on this jury didn’t give him a fair chance because they didn’t want him to win. Instead

Innocent until proven guilty is one of the basic tenants of the American criminal justice system. Historically, this principal has not applied to everyone, with slave owners having complete authority over their slaves. Certainly this has evolved greatly over the last 150 years, and today criminal rights theoretically apply equally to all American citizens. In the legal system today, everything from arrest requirements to sentencing mandates are created to be applied consistently across all citizens. However, throughout the entire criminal justice process, from arrest to sentencing, there are apparent disparities in the application of criminal rights across individuals of different racial backgrounds.

In a perfect world every person’s rights would never be compromised, within a society that is free of crime. Everyone would be equal and treated fairly. Unfortunately this is not the case, our system was created to serve and to protect the lives and rights of every American. Although, the scary reality is that not everyone’s rights are always protected and some are even wrongfully convicted of crimes he or she is innocent of. This is an unnerving concept that seems like a plot to a popular crime fighting show. Sadly, this possibility was a reality for a man named Ryan Ferguson. Three key factors of the Ryan Ferguson case are: the Crime Control Model, the role of evidence, and the role of Appellate courts.