"The overarching argument is ineffective assistance of counsel."
Rabia Chaudry
Adnan Syed, who was convicted for murder in 2000, and whose case was the subject of the podcast Serial, was granted a post-conviction hearing in a court order released Monday.
On WNPR's The Colin McEnroe Show, attorney Rabia Chaudry spoke about the development, which came sooner than Syed's legal team expected.
Below is a transcript of the conversation:
Rabia Chaundry: This is a major announcement. We had been preparing for our oral arguments in Adnan [Syed]’s leave to appeal. It’s been a slow slog. He was denied his post-conviction appeal last year. We essentially asked for another shot at it. It’s very rarely granted.
In February, they granted it, meaning we will think about whether or not you get to go back to post-conviction court so that Asia McClain can testify.
We were going to have oral arguments in June, and then we had to wait for the court to decide. That can take, like, a year. But the court issued an order today saying, essentially, we are remanding this; we want it to go back to the circuit court so that Asia can testify. They are canceling oral arguments, and they have said twice in their order that this was in the interest of justice. So they feel strongly that justice was not served, because Asia was prevented from testifying for Adnan in the post-conviction appeal.
Colin McEnroe: So this was a potential alibi witness -- it was actually one of the strains of the story, I think, introduced in one of the first episode of Serial. Then the other argument had to do with advocacy of counsel. Is that also still on the table within the scope of this decision?
Well, actually, the overarching argument is ineffective assistance of counsel, and under that argument are two sub arguments. One is the Asia argument, and one is the plea deal.
So we -- going back to the post-conviction court -- will not only bring Asia in to testify, and probably put Kevin Urick back on the stand to cross-examine him -- the prosecutor who didn’t play so great here -- but also, we get to bring in more evidence to show that his attorney was really not competent for a number of reasons, including health reasons, to represent him.
So maybe, just quickly: I don’t understand the difference between a post-conviction proceeding and, say, a new trial. But they’re not the same thing, are they?
They’re not the same thing. Because in a new trial you obviously get to retry the entire case, right? You have fact finders; you have a jury; you try to figure out what happened. In this, basically, you’re arguing that what happened at trial wasn’t right, and we deserve a new trial.
So, you know, it’s very, very rare that we get to even this stage. It’s, like, less than one percent of cases get to this stage. If we’re able to convince the court that Asia -- that his lawyer made a mistake in not contacting Asia 16 years ago, then we get a new trial. And for us, that’s really major. I totally believe we can prevail at trial, but I also strongly believe the state will not go to trial again. They don’t have a case anymore, and I think they might offer him a plea deal.
Tucker Ives and Charlie Smart contributed to this post.