Adnan Syed Remains a Convicted Murderer

Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments Media LLC

Atheist, Opinion, Harvard, News, Politics, Legal, Law, Liberal, Supremecourt

4.3 • 3.7K Ratings

🗓️ 9 September 2024

⏱️ 72 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

OA1067

After some of the strangest post-conviction twists in US legal history, the Supreme Court of Maryland has just reinstated Serial killer Adnan Syed’s conviction for the murder of his high school ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee 25 years ago. We begin by revisiting Matt’s first-ever legal podcasting deep dive with Thomas on Serious Inquiries Only (SIO354) shortly after Syed’s conviction was initially reinstated by the Maryland Appellate Court last April. How accurate were his predictions for what Maryland’s highest court would do with this, as well as for the fallout which might follow if a new team of prosecutors were to be required to go before a new judge to actually present the evidence upon which they claimed to have brought the motion which freed Syed?

Matt then briefly breaks down the Supreme Court of Maryland’s lengthy decision and explains why this is one of the strongest statements for victims rights ever made by any US state court. What are the odds of the prosecution now bringing a legitimate motion for a new trial? Why doesn’t Adnan Syed have to return to prison now that officially once more stands convicted of first-degree murder? And would we even be here at all if a man who has spent the last 25 years lying about a murder that he committed with his bare hands at the age of 17 hadn’t been introduced to a massive international audience by the only podcast your mother has ever listened to?

Maryland Supreme Court’s decision in Adnan Syed v. Young Lee as Victim’s Representative (9/3/24)

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.
0:07.0	He gags me! What's my crime? I got bold and a little negligent? Nope!
0:23.0	Bales are coming to take away my will to live.
0:28.0	Fuck them, though.
0:32.0	One count of being a bear, and one count of being an accessory to being a bear.
0:37.0	I hate the Supreme Court.
0:46.0	Hello and welcome to opening arguments. This is episode 1,67.
0:49.0	I'm Thomas Smith.
0:50.0	That over there is real life attorney, Matt Cameron,
0:52.6	reminder, real life attorney with criminal justice experience.
0:58.1	I don't know about justice, but what a legal experience.
1:00.3	Yeah, criminal justice system experience. I say that because you know people get a little frustrated when we tell the obvious truth about today's subject, but that's okay.
1:09.0	Yeah, I'm excited to be talking about this one. This is actually the decision that we're going to be talking about I think is probably the most interesting post-conviction case in US history at this point and it is absolutely the most significant case on victims rights in US history to date. So there's a lot to get into here. Yeah, no it's a big deal.
1:23.6	Even apart from just the fame of the case.
1:26.0	Absolutely.
1:27.0	Of course it's a chicken or the egg thing because the only reason we're here is because
1:29.2	of the fame of the case and never would have happened.
1:30.8	But what we're going to do today is we're going to listen to my
1:32.7	appearance on Serious Inquiries only. I Thomas Smith podcast from April 2023.
1:36.7	April 2023, Matt. I barely remember it anymore. Yeah, what was going on back then?
1:41.6	That was my first attempt at a deep dive on a legal topic,
1:44.1	and I had a great time doing it,
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Opening Arguments Media LLC, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Opening Arguments Media LLC and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.