This project was assigned in English. The essay is about a podcast on a trial of Adnan Syed who's a murderer that believe he was unfairly charged. This project taught me to be a team worker.
Collaborative Essay
Matthew Dang, Tyree Harding, Grace Rodriguez, and Jiayang Situ Molly Fenn English 3/4 8 March 2018 At a Disadvantage From the Start: The Unfair Trial of Adnan Syed Hae Min Lee, an 18 year old student at Woodlawn High School, was one of the 16,375 teenagers murdered from 1999-2006. (Minino) Her death was the focus of the podcast Serial, in which every detail of the case was dissected and shown to the entire world. The end of the case for Hae Min Lee’s murder was similar to Serial's conclusion: it was based on speculation, and left Adnan Syed’s innocence unclear. In the trial, there were more significant points present that refuted his innocence than those that supported it. As a result of the failure to use Asia McLean as a potential alibi, the disregard for forensic evidence at the crime scene, the major discrepancies in Jay’s story, the stories of Adnan getting a ride from Hae, and the unreliable phone records, Adnan Syed’s trial was definitively unfair. Throughout the trial, multiple testimonies went against Syed’s word; claiming he was seen with Hae, confirming he was acting alarmed while on the phone with the police, etc. However, there was never a case where witnesses defending Syed were presented; his defense lawyer, Christina Gutierrez, failed to introduce witnesses that professed Syed’s innocence. Gutierrez was unsuccessful in utilizing an alibi that countered the witnesses who spoke out against Syed. On January 13 of 1999, Syed’s peer Asia McLean claimed that she and Adnan spoke momentarily while waiting for her boyfriend. After about 15 to 20 minutes, “[she] left around 2:40.” Koenig states that Lee’s murder supposedly took place at 2:36 P.M. McLean’s words imply that Syed was not near Lee at the window of her death because of the conversation that was transpiring at the time. If that were true, Adnan being convicted as Lee’s killer would be impossible, according to McLean. Despite this evidence directly supporting Syed, "No attorney has ever contacted [McLean] about January 13, 1999.” She was never brought to court, due to “nothing coming out [as a result of pursuing the alibi.]” The failure to include McLean in the defense's case is one of the many holes exploited in Syed’s unfair trial. The supporting evidence produced by McLean was ignored due to the indolent performance of Gutierrez. If McLean had testified, the overall outcome of Syed’s case could have diverged completely. “In order for justice to be served, all information has to be out on the table.” (Fenton) Syed did not truly receive justice because there was information that was never brought to light in court. [Matthew] At the scene of Hae’s body, there were multiple items that were disregarded as potential items used to kill her. The rope, bottle, and fibers found on her body were not tested for DNA or fingerprints. During interviews with possible suspect Mr. S., the detectives aggressively mention the possibility of DNA testing, but “they never do so, [they] bluff[ed].” If these items had been tested, identifying the killer of Lee may have been much easier. The detectives looked into the bottle at the crime scene, and “got cellular material [that was] never tested” and ignored “a rope that was never tested”. (Serial, Episode 3) Both the liquor bottle and rope could have been used in the killing of Lee, so it was surprising that these items were discarded. The untested evidence suggests that the authorities failed to conduct a thorough investigation of the possible tools used in the Lee’s death. The DNA found could have been used to either refute or support Adnan’s story, and thus should not have been ignored. This supports the fact that he did not receive a fair trial. The DNA evidence at the crime scene could have defended Adnan, but completely neglecting to test the materials took away the possibility of exculpating him. [Grace] Jay Wilds story was the central piece of evidence that the prosecution used against Syed. One of the reasons that his story was so believed by much of the jury was the vivid description he gave of when he saw Lee’s body. Wilds said Lee’s body was curled up when Syed opened the trunk to her car, and her lips had turned blue (Serial, Episode 1). However, Jay's story is told multiple times throughout the case proceedings, and each time he tells the story, it changes. In one instance of the story, Wilds says that he refused to help Syed dig Lee’s grave, but in another, he clearly states that he helped Syed dig the hole (Serial, Episode 4). A discrepancy in a detail this important makes one question which version of the story is true. Misspeaking and forgetting small details is understandable, but it should be easy to remember whether you helped somebody dig another person’s grave or not. While Wilds’s story sounds realistic and has plenty of detail, a single person's story with very little support can’t convict someone. Evidence is the basis for all convictions, but most of the evidence provided was unreliable. This did not seem to bother the jury, as their decision process was very short. This means that either the defense was not able to thoroughly use evidence to help Syed, or the jury did not take into account the quality or quantity of the evidence given. [Tyree] Another testimony brought to the jury’s attention was the claim that on the day of Lee's murder, Syed asked Lee for a ride. This story would have been extremely incriminating for Adnan, if it were ever fully proved to be true. Multiple people gave a myriad of accounts on what they thought they had heard from Adnan on the day he asked Hae for a ride. One of these people was an officer, referred to as Adcock in the podcast, who says Adnan came up to him and talked about asking Hae for a ride (Serial, Episode 4). However, about a month later, Adcock his retracts original statement and says that Adnan never talked to him about asking for the ride. Adcock’s statement would not have been valid for the prosecution's use, but it was regardless. Even though the prosecution had statements from friends of Lee and Syed that said Syed asked for a ride, the quality of their memory was still uneasy. In both Syed and Lee’s friends’ testimonies, they all seemed very unsure if they heard Syed ask Lee for a ride or not (Serial, Episode 4). They were all in the hallways at the time, class was just getting out. This means there were a lot of kids in the hallways; in such a chaotic and noisy environment, what they really heard is unclear. The prosecution had only one seemingly concrete testimony from someone who seemed to know everything about they were speaking on, and that was that of Jay Wilds. [Tyree] Another piece of evidence used against Syed was the cell phone call log that seemed to corroborate Jay’s testimony. According to Jay, Syed supposedly held onto the phone during the day of the murder. However, Syed claims he gave it to Jay during the day. These records were “the pillar of the State’s case.” (Swaine) It was perceived that these records were perfectly reliable and completely irrefutable, along with the technology. However, there was a fine print statement on the cover sheet of the call records. It read: “outgoing calls only are reliable for location status. Any incoming calls will NOT be considered reliable information for location.” (Swaine) This entails that any calls that were received on Syed’s cell phone were not viable pieces of evidence that could have determined his geographical position. The 7:09 P.M. and 7:16 P.M. calls were incoming calls that pinged towers in the area of Leakin Park. Therefore, the claim that Syed was present at Leakin Park, supposedly burying Lee, can be ignored. These two calls were the strongest pieces of evidence that refuted Syed’s story. The jury believed that he was at Leakin Park at this time, and that Wilds’s testimony and other prosecuting testimonies were supported. However, this was not true, and the jurors were misled into believing otherwise. If the jurors were informed that Syed’s location could not have been determined with incoming calls, their decision may have been different. The phone records were seen as a strong piece of evidence against Adnan, but they were unreliable, thus leaving the argument against Adnan in question. [Matthew] In Serial, the question is raised as to why Adnan Syed was singled out by prosecutors. Syed’s mother felt that race was a large part of why her son was arrested and sentenced. "It was easier to take him than other people" (Shamim Syed, Serial). In the podcast, Koenig stated and supported the fact that anti-muslim prejudice did play a role in Syed’s case. Adnan was arrested “Because [he] was a Muslim child, that's why they took him” (Shamim Syed, Serial). Shamim Syed expressed a lot of discontent with the jury and police officers for how they treated her son. One of the jurors who was considered for the trial stated “a friend of mine that was of Muslim faith and I seen him mistreat his family, his wife and everything, I’ve seen this go on between him and his son, he got mad and he did the same thing that father did” (Serial, Episode 10). This means that this potential juror already had preconceived notions about Muslim people, and compared Syed to a man who mistreated his family. This comparison blatantly shows that discrimination was present in at least one of the people in the group of jurors selected. The jurors in the actual trial, the people deciding his fate, could just as easily have had a preconceived notion about Syed’s race as well. [Yang] Numbers and evidence are ironclad, but memory cannot always be trusted. This is part of why the trial of Adnan Syed was unfair from beginning to end. The prosecution's star witness provided a story that was believable to the jury, but it was littered with discrepancies that should have decreased its credibility. Much of the other evidence against Adnan also contained mistakes that should have been taken into account. For instance, the phone records, which were proven to be unreliable. The failure to call in Asia McLean, the disregard of forensic testing on potential evidence, and possible racial discrimination were all taken for granted by the jury. If those key errors had been explained or avoided entirely, Adnan’s trial could have gone differently, and we would have a clear answer about his innocence.
Show us what you know. History project.
This project was assigned in World History. It's about different dynasty of people rap battling each other. Doing this project I learned to have fun with project don't take it too serious.