Legal Briefs 17: Adnan Syed and the Murder of Hae Min Lee

To the delight of many, Adnan Syed was released from prison this week, his conviction for murdering Hae Min Lee vacated. Surprisingly, this was the result of the state’s own motion. How did this happen? What arguments did the state make? And did the court get it right? Listen on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

The State’s Motion

2019 Decision in State v. Syed


One thought on “Legal Briefs 17: Adnan Syed and the Murder of Hae Min Lee

  1. Hey Alice and Brad! Usually I really enjoy listening to your thoughts, however this time I’m having to pause my listen a mere 23 minutes and 30 seconds into the podcast just to get a few things off my chest before I can even consider continuing to listen. I promise I’ll be civil and gentle here, as I appreciate all that you do.

    First, I appreciate that you acknowledge at the top of the episode that you have *not* covered the Adnan Syed case in depth. I tried to remind myself of that as you made many comments throughout the first 23 minutes and 30 seconds that seemed not only ill-informed rushes to judgement, but just bald-face “Team Prosecution” statements that maybe 1/4 basis in fact and 3/4 basis in fantasy.

    While I’m not at all attempting to criticize or critique your knowledge of the law here, I am trying to hold you accountable for your knowledge of the case at hand, and though you may have read the motion – I doubt you have read the case files in their entirety, or know the facts about which or if altnernative suspects existed at the time of the investigation and which *IF ANY* were disclosed to the defense at during the time of the investigation, or around the time of trial.

    In the first 23 minutes of your podcast you both said something like (and, yes, I’m paraphrasing), ‘There are always TONS of alternate suspects in EVERY CASE…,’ to try to make a point to your listeners that the investigators and prosecution did their due dilligence in this case and properly looked for, and ruled out other suspects. I think the argument has *ALWAYS* been from the defense’s point of view, that this was not the case. Now they have evidence to prove it. One of the suspects mentioned, but not named in the motion is Mr. S (who is the one who took the two polygraphs – if you were familiar with the case files you would know he is the only suspect who took two polygraphs – he was also the sex offender who conveniently found the victims body buried in the woods over 200 yards off of the road, and has one of the people the defense has claimed has always been improperly cleared as a suspect since day one).

    It’s neither here nor there for me to say who is innocent or guilty. But its also neither here nor there for you to claim that this evidence is not Brady material when all of this material would have EASILY raised doubt in the mind of a Jury. Especially when Mr. S was a registered sex offender at the time of the murder (he was not the suspect who went to jail after the murder).

    If you have any issue with any of this, you can feel free to look up the polygraph records. They are available online. Just google them. I’m really disappointed in your reporting on this case.

    MFT Trainee


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s