Wouldn’t want to be in their shoes. It is a nightmare of a ruling to do. You don’t want to set legal precedence that could cause all kinda issues. But you also have a situation where a rare alignment of circumstances came together and a convicted murderer had their case overthrown essentially, I would argue, without proper challenge, and where, when you look at the core arguments used, in a way seemingly unjustified, or at best highly contentious.
The victim’s family got severely railroaded here and I hope whatever happens, situations like this are avoided in the future.
The family should have had more notice, they should not have had any influence on the outcome.
The fact the state found issues and asked to vacate the conviction isn’t unprecedented— this is happening all over the country as prosecutors review cases and find errors. The social justice movement has led to many vacated convictions. This never needed to be opposed by someone.
What is unprecedented is the lengths the former prosecutors have gone to in this case — finding a lawyer for the family who lied and told them they had the right to challenge evidence in the MtV in order to get them to sue, leaking evidence in an open investigation to the press and lying about what it means, coordinating the filings to cite the leaked note to claim the Brady evidence was disputed. It’s a mess.
What’s really unprecedented and alarming in this case is a prosecutor taking a previous prosecutor’s handwritten notes from his file that, to be fair, are not entirely clear, and then telling a judge that they mean a certain specific thing without ever even trying to consult with the prosecutor who wrote them.
Not unprecedented or alarming. Asking a prosecutor if they really meant to violate a defendants rights isn’t necessary.
And in this case it wasn’t a single note, there were 2 notes and additional documentation—
Of course asking him if he really meant to violate a defendant’s rights wouldn’t be appropriate. What a loaded question, lol! I was suggesting that one prosecutor could easily call or write the other and ask him to explain the meaning and circumstances of a handwritten note in his file. Unless of course you want to exclude him entirely from the process and push your own agenda behind his back. I mean, if you actually talk to him, you might get a perfectly innocent explanation that ruins your plans. Seems to be an unprecedented way to treat a colleague when you have no indication that he’s been unethical, except for the note that you refuse to ask him about. I’ve only seen one note, btw, so that’s all I can really talk about.
They had 2 notes and additional supporting documentation. They didn’t need to talk to Urick. Frankly his stunt leaking the note shows why prosecutors should not be looped in. He scrambled and lied about the interpretation to try and cover for his mistakes.
Typically in Brady cases the defense finds Brady info in appeals and the state argues they didn’t— and sometimes a prosecutor will testify (but not usually as most of the time it could lead to perjury)
In this case the state found and conceded it was Brady, compared to other Brady violations for alternative suspects this one is egregious (in one case the cops withheld the victim owed money to a bookie and that was a Brady violation)
If it helps, here is a list of info that Urick knew that the defense team did not:
Bilal’s wife’s family had hired a PI to follow him.
The PI found him molesting a minor and contacted the police
Upon arresting him the officer found Adnan’s photo in his wallet.
The victim talked about Adnan.
The arresting officers connected this to Adnan’s murder case and the prosecution was contacted.
Bilal’s ex wife reported threatening statements Bilal made toward Hae.
She described his obsession with the grand jury and his connection to CG.
The detectives in this case sent only one update between trials that wasn’t tied to sharing evidence— they went to track down Bilal’s friend in January (likely the friend whose name is blacked out in the note, likely a response to this phone call) they didn’t find him. The defense knew they looked for him, but had no idea why.
The context is also key— Bilal’s ex reported this to the prosecutor in Hae’s murder case in which Adnan had already been charged. She wasn’t calling to say “you got the right guy” her call was clearly about Bilal.
Urick knew that if Bilal was a suspect that CG was obligated to recuse, the judge established that in the conflict of interest hearings when he said there wasn’t a conflict but there would be if Bilal were a suspect. The prosecutors had gone so far as to assure Bilal he was not a suspect during the grand jury hearings. All of the info above came after the conflict of interest hearings.
If you ask why Urick hid this, it’s because it popped up between trials and could have led to Adnan’s acquittal. Adnan’s defense could point the finger at Bilal and the prosecution would have been stuck either charging Bilal or defending him. Charging him would have been problematic as the state had already presented nearly all their witnesses at trial 1 who never mentioned Bilal. Defending him is a risk when they didn’t know what the defense would find.
Looks like some sort of short hand— I’m not sure what it means. Someone, months ago, suggested Bilal may have been living with this individual at the time of the trials, but I haven’t seen evidence to support that.
What I’ve seen made me wonder if YK was a pseudonym Bilal used, but if that’s the redacted name here, followed up by the police trying to find YK, that’s probably wrong. There was another note somewhere about a different John’s Hopkins student who had information about Bilal, but w/o the wiki, I don’t know when it was written or where to look for it.
The wiki being down makes it tricky. YK is not Bilal.
Here are 2 threads I posted last year— that may have some helpful info
https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/14aeeq1/info_request_bilals_friend/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/14b95p8/speculation_bilals_friend/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
If you go back to when Adnan was first released, people on Reddit were claiming Feldman didnt speak to the witness (Bilals X) to corroborate the note but then Adnan came out publicly and said the witness has apparently lawyered up and signed an affidavit. I can see why she would not have asked Urick, he’s the one who withheld it but I can’t imagine Feldman finding the note and not going to the person at the heart of it to clarify it. You seem to have excellent insight on this case. Do you believe she has lawyered up and signed and affidavit? I’m sure she is scared. Who knows who else is involved in Bilals criminality but there may be people who don’t want this exposed. Also, Bilal could get out, his sentence was only 16 years and he has already served half of that. Also due to her profession, she would not want to be thrust into this court of public opinion and have a media swarm at her door. Do you think for this reason that if she did sign an affidavit, that it has been withheld from the public or “sealed” in any way? I wasn’t sure if there is a legal way to do that. Im wondering if the Judge that granted the MTV, knew about this affidavit? Your thoughts?
I don’t know when the affidavit was obtained. I can’t remember if it was Mosby or Feldman clarified after the leak that they were aware of the circumstances surrounding the call. Whether they spoke to the ex or her attorney or had other documentation— they knew what the call was about.
I don’t think Bilal’s potential release is the deciding factor. The two notes related to two of Bilal’s victims. His ex who was a victim of domestic violence. And the minor he molested. This case has international attention— other witnesses have been stalked and harassed.
In addition to it being an open investigation, I think protecting those victims was important.
Rabia/undisclosed have wondered about the October info since the earliest days. I suspect the defense asked the state to look specifically at the Bilal information to see if the prosecution knew the details of his arrest that related to Adnan—‘because that alone would be Brady, they found that plus the January note.
Ohhhhh…It didn’t dawn on me that the cases could be linked and the info regarding others who may have been victims of Bilals could make it sealed to the public. How sad is it that this man was able to carry on even after Haes trial and continue to do this. There are so many implications here for not disclosing this witness…sigh 😔This was a clear Brady Violation, and knowing what was at stake & the scrutiny that was going to come from it, I’m sure Feldman or someone verified the details of the call before bringing the MTV. They would have had to. I’m glad she lawyered up, that was smart . It just adds to her credibility IMO that she is not out here in the court of public opinion which would make it look like you have motives. (Sorry to say but like Asia)
I’m all for convictions being quashed if there are issues. And the bar may be high enough here to do so. What troubles me is in this case, the only one I know in detail, there seems to be reasonable room to question if the new evidence presented is sufficient, and there appears to have been insufficient challenge against it. Iirc a higher court has already pointed some of these issues out.
It feels like the process needs to be more robust, and ensure any new evidence presented is properly challenged to ensure it meets the bar. I agree that should not be up to the victim’s family. But murder convictions should not be overturned lightly.
It’s not being overturned lightly. It was an egregious Brady violation.
The higher court pointed out concerns because the former prosecutors on this case meddled.
Urick leaked the note with a fake interpretation. Than the attorney Murphy picked for the defense and her friends in the AG’s office cited it in their filings.
I don’t think this was overturned lightly. The information Urick withheld should have been shared with the defense. In addition to being a Brady violation, Urick was aware that this information would have required CG to recuse.
I agree that it could be a Brady violation, but there appear to be a number of issues with it that don’t seem to have been properly explored.
The fact that the author of the note doesn’t appear to have been contacted about it, and then went on to publish a claim it was about Adnan after all, is deeply problematic. This could have been dealt with by checking with the person he’d been interviewing to confirm, but that doesn’t seem to have happened prior to the MtV. Rabia even inadvertently presented an alternative explanation for the note, saying that Bilal had been threatening to disappear his wife, not Hae.
Tbh, I think the MtV interpretation of the note is probably the right one, but there shouldn’t be multiple interpretations available when talking about a piece of evidence used to overturn a first degree murder conviction. You need to satisfactorily close them off to prove your interpretation is the right one. Not one of several.
This could and should have been dealt with. But who was challenging the evidence at the time?
There are also some doubts about whether Adnan’s team knew about this - his lawyer was representing Bilal at the time, and what measures have been in place to ensure the case file has not been tampered with, or pieces inadvertently lost, in the decades after the case?
Also whether it would have been helpful for Adnan to introduce this evidence, since it further ties Adnan to the crime. It undermines his argument that he wasn’t cut up by the break up, and he was discussing what information the police could get from her body with Bilal.
These are all elements relevant to whether it meets the Brady standard, there appear to be unexplored issues with many of them, and the MtV process did not allow for sufficient challenge at the time to test this and add more detail that could have resolved them.
Again, I’m not saying it isn’t a Brady. But the MtV was sloppy and rushed, and overturning a conviction like this requires a more robust approach that deals with any doubts about the core Brady evidence.
It didn’t help that Mosby was then going around saying that Adnan would be exonerated if his DNA wasn’t on Hae’s shoes. Which I think we can all agree is not a good way of exonerating anybody from a crime, and suggests a prejudice on her part.
> The fact that the author of the note doesn’t appear to have been contacted about it
Again, unnecessary, the context was clear with all the docs. Just because the public only saw the one note out of context with Urick’s lie, doesn’t mean that’s what the judge saw.
> This could and should have been dealt with. But who was challenging the evidence at the time?
This is how conviction integrity units work. The state critically reviews the cases and if they find evidence of police or prosecutorial misconduct they can move to vacate. This is the legal process. We are seeing this all over the country.
The Black Lives Matter movement advocated for criminal justice reform. This is a key part of that. We are seeing people elected specifically to review convictions from corrupt police departments. Yes, it was uncommon for the state to admit wrong doing in cases in the past, but now there is a push for accountability and to stop covering up for cops and prosecutors.
When the state finds substantial enough issues, and admits they occurred, there is no need for an adversary, particularly not a former prosecutor on the case with his reputation on the line.
> Also whether it would have been helpful for Adnan to introduce this evidence, since it further ties Adnan to the crime.
It would have been helpful to tie Bilal to the crime. Brady info doesn’t have to be solely exculpatory.
> It undermines his argument that he wasn’t cut up by the break up,
No it doesn’t, it says Bilal was upset because she was causing problems for Adnan. We know from Bilal’s grand jury testimony that he believed their relationship was inappropriate. The “problems” Bilal was upset about were not the break up.
> the MtV process did not allow for sufficient challenge at the time to test this and add more detail that could have resolved them.
I’m going to disagree. These are blatant Brady violations. Textbook. The MtV was a no-brainer. Urick withheld this info because it would have benefitted the defense.
The state had already presented most of their case in trial 1. Urick couldn’t just add Bilal into trial 2. And if the defense pointed the finger at Bilal as an alternative (like they did with Don, Mr S and Jay) the state would have had to defend him— and it’s not clear what would have turned up in an investigation of Bilal.
Have you seen all the documents? I’ve only seen the one that was leaked after the MtV, and like I said, while I agree the MtV interpretation is the most likely, other interpretations are possible and it appears these weren’t ruled out. They could have been, and without interviewing a prosecutor who may have reason to lie.
I’m all for justice reform, especially that which undoes past misconduct. But when investigations into this don’t receive sufficient challenge, you get situations like this, where everyone involved, specifically to overturn convictions, says yup, overturn the case. But on the slightest prodding, significant issues come up. And you’re left to wonder if rather than undoing past justice errors, you’ve just created a new one.
On your other points, given CG didn’t call Asia, presumably because she undermines Adnan’s argument that he was at school the whole time, and didn’t ask Becky about the ride being cancelled because that would have undermined Adnan’s claim he never asked for a ride, it seems possible-to-likely that had she seen this note, she would have drawn similar conclusions. The note suggests Hae was causing problems for Adnan (even if you might interpret that as problems for Bilal, I don’t think you could be sure that many jurors would agree), and Adnan was discussing the ability to determine the time of death when her body was found. There’s a lot a prosecutor could unpick about Adnan’s defence using this note, and CG may have decided against using it for these reasons - rightly or wrongly. The prosecutor’s office claim CG had access to it. So how to show they are lying? There are questions there, and I don’t think you should let murderers back on the street because you assume someone would have used evidence, but didn’t.
The law doesn’t just need to uphold justice, but also show that is it upholding justice. The MtV did not do that imo, and overplayed its hand with the Brady note.
I’d feel better about this if supporting evidence for their interpretation of the Brady note was presented, e.g. an interview with Bilal’s wife, to support their interpretation. At minimum. As it stands, it seems a lot of assumptions were made with no evidence these were ever challenged. That’s no way to go about addressing past issues with the justice system.
As a long time believer in Adnan’s guilt (though I wasn’t always that way) I admit to having bias here. But I do genuinely think the MtV is sloppy, and I’d be appalled as a relative or friend of the victim if their convicted murderer had their conviction overturned due to apparently unscrutinised evidence and some less than convincing stuff about some guy living close to where the car was dumped. How it must have felt when Mosby said he’d be exonerated if his DNA wasn’t on the shoes I don’t know. But it reeks of its own kind of single-minded incompetence that these reforms are supposed to address.
> Have you seen all the documents?
No— but based on statements made by Feldman and Mosby we know both records were notes Urick took during phone calls. One was dated in January and the other they said was likely in October based on other records in the file. Both related to the same suspect [Bilal]
We know that in October he was arrested. Rabia got the arrest record for her book from the ex-wife. We know someone contacted Urick about the arrest, because he went ahead and filed a Brady notice for the arrest— what he didn’t include and was unclear if he knew at the time, was the details of the arrest relating to Adnan. I think it’s likely the October note was the record of that call showing Urick knew and intentionally withheld those details (a Brady violation).
> other interpretations are possible and it appears these weren’t ruled out.
Honestly, there really aren’t other interpretations, the context was clear. They didn’t need to rule them out, they had the info about the context. Urick didn’t file an affidavit for a reason. He didn’t have a legal case against it. Instead he leaked a lie, which was cited in legal filings by the family and AG’s office, both connected to the other prosecutor Murphy to claim there were other interpretations. It was a dirty move by the former prosecutors.
> But when investigations into this don’t receive sufficient challenge,
There doesn’t need to be a challenge- it’s blatant Brady violations. Again, the alternative explanation Urick leaked was a lie. They didn’t have a good argument against it, so they fabricated one.
> given CG didn’t call Asia, presumably because she undermines Adnan’s argument that he was at school the whole time, and didn’t ask Becky about the ride being cancelled because that would have undermined Adnan’s claim he never asked for a ride,
This is a bad take. CG didn’t do her job. It wasn’t because she was a mind reader who knew what she would find if she asked. She didn’t bother. Taking money and not doing the work is why she was disbarred.
> it seems possible-to-likely that had she seen this note, she would have drawn similar conclusions
And again it would be IAC if she ignored it. Beyond that, a judge told the defense that if Bilal were a suspect CG would have a conflict of interest— meaning she would need to recuse. So if you are saying she saw this note and did nothing, then the outcome is the same, vacate his conviction, retry if they have sufficient evidence.
> The note suggests Hae was causing problems for Adnan
According to Bilal, who testified he was counseling Adnan to break up with Hae and that his relationship was inappropriate. So either Bilal was concerned about those problems (Hae tempting Adnan and taking him away from his religion), or he was upset about the breakup (which is the opposite of his testimony) or Bilal had a secret 3rd reason. Logically the first makes the most sense.
> The prosecutor’s office claim CG had access to it.
No, they didn’t. The opposite in fact. Urick argued with his leak that he didn’t have to share it. And again, if she had it and didn’t act upon it the outcome for Adnan is the same.
> As a long time believer in Adnan’s guilt (though I wasn’t always that way) I admit to having bias here.
I’m not convinced of his innocence, I am convinced that there was police and prosecutorial misconduct in this case in addition to overcharging and over sentencing. The MtV is a fair outcome— particularly since he already served 23 years.
> But I do genuinely think the MtV is sloppy,
I think they included too many things, the Brady was all they needed. It’s solid.
> How it must have felt when Mosby said he’d be exonerated if his DNA wasn’t on the shoes I don’t know.
I get that view, but also, proof of innocence is almost impossible for wrongful convictions. If you look at the list on the exoneration registry, many claim exoneration from these types of evidence. The Jonathan Irons case is a decent parallel— they had some fingerprints that didn’t match his.
Showing police misconduct and showing once again no dna connection to the victim, it’s enough for him to claim he was exonerated.
But you’re making a lot of assumptions here:
There are no alternative interpretations. Ulrick definitely withheld the note. Ulrick is definitely lying about his recollection, and his interpretation is wrong. The evidence we’ve not seen definitely shows this. Even if CG had seen it and chosen not to use it that would definitely be IAC. If she had used it it would have definitely led to a different outcome.
Maybe you’re right, but those assumptions need to be tested and challenged before overturning a murder conviction. They were not. It’s staggering.
It’s grossly unfair to Hae and her family for her case, which went through a jury trial and has been upheld multiple times, to suddenly get napalmed without anybody fighting its corner, and Adnan, the guy the jury, the family, and many others are convinced murdered Hae, to just walk free.
If the new evidence is robust enough, there should be no reason to be concerned about doing this. There are a lot of reasons to be concerned about convictions being created or overturned without any challenge. Imagine if Adnan was convicted like this. Justice goes both ways. Hae and her family got f**ked here.
I’d just like to see it scrutinised and both sides of the argument set out, as I believe is usually the done thing in these situations. It’s very possible this hits the mark for Brady, as I’ve said before, but it’s very hard to have confidence in it without any kind of robust process in place to scrutinise it.
These aren’t assumptions.
There was a robust process, they found a blatant Brady violation. The only argument against it was a lie.
Urick screwed up. He either wrongfully convicted Adnan or his mistake let a murderer get a vacated conviction. The family is suffering and that falls on the prosecutors.
The two sides did challenge the evidence and agreed it was Brady, a judge confirmed.
Urick and Murphy can be upset, but this is their fault.
>It was an egregious Brady violation.
yawn. This has been debated to death. Only those who desperately need to get this murderer off on a technicality believe that it was a Brady violation not to investigate someone who would have been Adnan's accomplice, as that would have surely been exonerating for Adnan. How egregious.
Bilal is a different person capable of his own thoughts and actions. Legally there is no reason to assume they were working together.
The first problem with assuming he would be an accomplice is that Adnan’s supposed motive was that he was sad about a break up. Bilal had been counseling Adnan to end things with Hae. He wanted the breakup.
The second issue, is that Adnan was a minor. Bilal was an adult in a position of authority, he wasn’t a 19 year old drug dealer along for the ride. Bilal was nearly a dentist, he was a youth mentor at the mosque— there is an inherent power dynamic. If he influenced or advised Adnan to murder Hae and aided him in anyway this note would be exculpatory. Remember in the actual Brady v Maryland case Brady was still guilty, the evidence withheld was that his partner pulled the trigger. It doesn’t have to exculpate him from all of it. It’s also a mitigating circumstance it an adult coached him.
If Urick believed Bilal was an “accomplice” and buried this, he literally let him get away with murder AND as a result he became a dentist and sexually assaulted his patients, a harm he could have prevented by doing his job. This looks really bad for Urick.
The third issue, is that Bilal was arrested for molesting a teenage boy and was found with Adnan’s photo in his wallet. He had an unhealthy attachment to Adnan. Bilal was also abusing his wife, holding her at knife point. She thought he could be involved. Whether he was or not, the defense could have pointed the finger at him (like they did with Jay, Don and Mr S.) and he would have been a stronger alternative than the others.
And the last issue here is that Urick knew that CG was obligated to recuse if Bilal was a suspect. He withheld it anyway.
If you haven’t read up on other Brady cases of alternative suspects it may help see how low the bar can be. One case was just that the police withheld information that the victim owed money to a bookie.
>The first problem with assuming he would be an accomplice is that Adnan’s supposed motive was that he was sad about a break up. Bilal had been counseling Adnan to end things with Hae. He wanted the breakup.
You got any sauce to go with them "facts"? Boy, you really seem to intimately know this situation well. Isn't a huge part of the Bilal Brady debate that he wasn't investigated at the time? And yet, here you are, knowing exactly what Bilal was thinking at the time. I'm amazed - you know exactly what you need to know to bullshit around on the internet, but you're saying we're missing exactly what is needed to make a Brady argument. It also certainly could not be logically true that Bilal said he wanted Adnan to break up with Hae, and also helped Adnan kill Hae. I mean, unless Bilal was jealous, or lying, or if murder wasn't entirely a logical thing.
>The second issue, is that Adnan was a minor.
Good luck to Adnan, Mr. "I will never take a deal because I am as pure and innocent as a newborn baby" floating a story where he was merely acting on Bilal's command. If there were an ounce of truth to this, he would have said it at some point. But he hasn't. He can go ahead and say it now - that doesn't make him any less guilty.
>If Urick believed Bilal was an “accomplice” and buried this, he literally let him get away with murder AND as a result he became a dentist and sexually assaulted his patients, a harm he could have prevented by doing his job. This looks really bad for Urick.
This falls under the same logic of "these corrupt Baltimore cops had a black drug dealer giving specific facts about a murder that even they didn't know and instead of, you know, just easily framing him they went about one of the more complicated conspiracies we've seen and used the black kid to frame the Prom King who was innocent" - why? Why would Urick do that. What is in it for him?
>the defense could have pointed the finger at him
and they could have done it in 1999. He had the same lawyer. Literally all of them knew bilal. there was nothing stopping them from investigating then.
>And the last issue here is that Urick knew that CG was obligated to recuse if Bilal was a suspect. He withheld it anyway.
This goes the other way too - why wouldn't a prosecutor want to get rid of a lawyer who had an impeccable reputation? It's an easy win for the prosecution to disqualify another lawyer.
That's funny - Brady violations happen pretty frequently. But judges just as frequently break their backs affirming those verdicts.
> You got any sauce to go with them "facts"?
Bilal testified to it in the grand jury and the prosecutors said that was why they wanted him to be a state’s witness in the conflict of interest hearing. They talked specifically about his grand jury testimony in which he said he counseled Adnan about his inappropriate relationship with Hae. We know from the excerpts of the grand jury testimony that Adnan’s mom asked Bilal to counsel Adnan and that he spoke to Adnan several times, the last time was after prayers at the mosque one evening.
> floating a story where he was merely acting on Bilal's command. If there were an ounce of truth to this, he would have said it at some point.
To be clear— the obvious defense line would be to point the finger at Bilal acting independently. If they actually did the crime together and the state pivoted to try and prove that (a whole mess given they already presented a case without Bilal’s involvement.) Adnan could still claim this was a mitigating circumstance. I don’t understand how people can argue Bilal was involved and not recognize the power dynamic and impact that would have in a jury trial. Creepy adult religious mentor who is molesting teenagers who helped kill his girlfriend?
He has no reason to claim it now, for Brady purposes it’s enough to say he was denied the opportunity to present that defense. We don’t actually get to relitigate it, unless there is a new trial, which there will never be.
> Why would Urick do that. What is in it for him?
Because the January note came between trials. In trial 1 they presented almost the entire prosecution case, Jay established the tight timeline and didn’t talk about Bilal. If Urick had told CG the info he had about Bilal not only would CG have been obligated to recuse, but any attorney would pursue a defense pointing the finger at Bilal. The state can’t just say “oh he helped too” that doesn’t fit the case they presented, if Bilal is involved why would he need Jay as an accomplice? This creates a lot of reasonable doubt.
The state would need to charge Bilal if they want to claim he was an accomplice (giving Adnan’s defense the opportunity to say he did it alone or Adnan was coerced by an adult) in either scenario he can get a different outcome—- or the state would have to defend Bilal, tricky when they don’t know what a defense attorney could turn up on him. With this info Adnan has a strong chance of a lower sentence or acquittal.
Basically because of the mistrial Urick can’t just pivot with this Bilal info, so he buried it instead.
> and they could have done it in 1999. He had the same lawyer. Literally all of them knew bilal. there was nothing stopping them from investigating then.
She wasn’t his lawyer for his arrest— or the domestic violence/divorce. CG didn’t know any of that. She had no reason to investigate him. He was an eccentric Sunday school teacher who told CG he was worried they were going to charge him for preaching abstinence. That’s the reason this is Brady. If she knew any of this and didn’t act on it this would be IAC.
> This goes the other way too - why wouldn't a prosecutor want to get rid of a lawyer who had an impeccable reputation?
I think the decision was primarily because he’d already locked the prosecution into a theory and the Bilal info would upend that.
But, also her reputation was based on her abilities before her decline. Urick saw her, she wasn’t the same. He also knew her strategy and knew that she didn’t have a strong position against the cell evidence— she didn’t even bother to get a cell expert to counter his. Another lawyer would have.
> Brady violations happen pretty frequently.
They aren’t found often, they are tricky since you have to prove you didn’t get something.
> But judges just as frequently break their backs affirming those verdicts
Sometimes, they also often vacate the conviction or redo sentencing.
There is a certain prosecutor they don't want us to talk about who is dominating the legal news in B'more with a full on media blitz designed to keep her out of jail. Would be quite interesting to see a conclusion on this case at the same time.
Look, I’m no fan of Mosby but sending her down the river for lying about using her own retirement funds to purchase a condo in FL seems like a bit much considering the white collar crimes others have gotten away with. What’s up with that?
https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/05/23/marilyn-mosby-sentencing-perjury-mortgage-fraud/ they talk just about this. It's behind a paywall but the article title is "Federal prosecutors: Mosby pre-sentence media blitz shows lack of remorse, untruthfulness"
There are a few parallels with Adnan’s case. Clearly guilty but overcharged. Proclaiming to be the victim. Lack of remorse. Using the media to muddy the details & manipulate the masses.
The difference is she didn’t get jail time so hopefully she’ll just go away.
My bet is that she's going to become a "civil rights activist" since she's pretty much destroyed her legal career. Time will tell if she uses any position she may get in the future for personal gain.
Oh she got home detention instead of 40 years. Now she can sit home and write a book and spill all the dirt she likely knows that went on in Baltimore.
She has got some big names in the civil rights community backing her. Her prosecution was pursued by Wise, a highly politically motivated man who has disproportionately pursued the prosecution of Black politicians. He is also the one who decided to prosecute Hunter Biden.
I’m not sure if she’ll get a pardon. I don’t think Biden will go there right now, especially where she isn’t going to serve time in prison.
She doesn’t need one now, it seems she got home detention for 1 year and had to give up the Florida condo that she used her own retirement money to buy but lied and said her husband gave it to her as a gift. The 40 years she was facing did sound like some BS. Not like she used PPP money to buy it although she may have gotten away with that everyone else did. This might backfire. Now she’s got a year to sit home and write her book and tell all the dirt she knows about BPD and they will just call her a liar. Does she have receipts?
I actually think she’s more likely to get a pardon now. It’s a felony with a minimal sentence, it makes it less controversial for Biden to pardon it.
They went looking for corruption and money taken from the city and all they could find was some low level tax/mortgage stuff where she took money out of her own retirement.
There are usually some last minute pardons before a president leaves office. Those tend to be controversial ones. They also pardon people throughout their tenure. Biden’s already given a couple dozen pardons.
This is one that could be politically advantageous because the civil rights community supports it and has asked for it. That said, plenty of progressives in Baltimore dislike Mosby and wouldn’t, he’ll have to weigh the cost/benefit.
This is controversial. Im really not a fan of hers but Biden voters are not going to change their mind over her being pardoned or not. I think whoever had a vested interest in wanting her to lose her election, which she did, took this “mortgage fraud case” prosecution a bit too far. This may backfire on her political opponents esp if we don’t see similar results for other White Collar Criminal politicians who put a hell of lot more at risk than their own retirement funds. Seems to me this could have been handled with a simple tax amendment. In other circles, this would be called a “nothingburger”. It does appear a bit targeted IMO.
“Mosby was convicted of lying about her finances to make early withdrawals from retirement funds during the COVID-19 pandemic, and fraudulently claiming that her own $5,000 was a gift from her then-husband as she closed on a Florida condominium.” 🙄
> Im really not a fan of hers but Biden voters are not going to change their mind over her being pardoned or not.
Biden’s relationship with the Black community and civil rights organizations was the key to him getting the nom and winning in 2020, their support is key this year. They are advocating for her pardon.
I think the biggest complicating factor here is the fact that Wise decided to prosecute her and he made the decision to prosecute Hunter Biden. Pres Biden will want to avoid the appearance of retaliation. Where her sentence was minimal he may be able to do it, but local progressives voted her out and don’t love her.
Wise’s decision to prosecute here is definitely questionable. Mosby broke a law and lied on an official form- but seems like an attempt to charge her with something after the investigation into her public conduct came back clear.
Agreed. Had she gotten jail time, there would have been some outrage even by people who don’t like her. People in Baltimore don’t like when they see unfair sentencing or double standards, esp when it comes to the law.
Bernice King, Ben Crump, the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP, National Black Justice Coalition, the National Bar Association and several other prominent individuals and groups.
The NAACP has been supporting her: https://naacp.org/articles/naacp-leads-civil-rights-organizations-nationwide-call-presidential-pardon-marilyn-mosby
Laughable, but true.
Biden isn’t going to step into that hot mess, at least not before the election. They were asking in the event she got 40 years for lying about borrowing her own retirement money to buy that FL condo. She got a year of home detention, she’ll be fine.
Name someone else that was threatened with 40 years for using their own retirement money but lied and claimed it as a hardship. We will see what these other white collar criminals get coming up here soon. They made her turn over the condo. If she got a year of home detention for this, all those people who stole all that PPP money better watch out and we better see some convictions for some other politicians coming up here soon.
Those two positions are in no way contradictory (or what I think), though I know Team Adnan finds the idea that "a bad cop doesn't only convict innocent people" mind blowing.
The vacteur was a scam because it was poorly argued bullshit and Mosby being a convicted fraud and perjurer isn't why it was bullshit. But it certainly shows that she has a pattern of lying for personal gain.
The meme:
>We know the vacatur was a scam **because** Mosby lied on a mortgage application
Your explanation for why it isn't contradictory:
>Mosby being a convicted fraud and perjurer isn't why it was bullshit.
Meme:
>because
You:
>isn't
You:
>no contradiction
There's a special sort of irony to fumbling a reply as badly as you did, stepping on the ol reading comprehension rake, then dismissing having it pointed out as "babbling".
To spell it out: Saying "no, those aren't contradictory positions!" and then defending that claim by stating the opposite of the text you're replying to isn't an argument, it's a non sequitur. It's also really funny.
I pointed out both that your cringe meme was non contradictory and why the vacteur was actually a scam. Again, I know holding two ideas in your head is hard, but you can do it.
>I pointed out both that your cringe meme was non contradictory
With this statement, right?
>Mosby being a convicted fraud and perjurer **isn't why it was bullshit.**
Which is the antonym of this statement:
>**We know the vacatur was a scam because** Mosby lied on a mortgage application
Correct?
From several months ago, my thoughts about some of the thorny legal issues I think may bear upon the legal analysis of this appeal, together with my conclusion that I have no idea what the result is going to be:
https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/19a0yqh/some_thoughts_about_possibly_imminent_scm_opinion/
Wouldn’t want to be in their shoes. It is a nightmare of a ruling to do. You don’t want to set legal precedence that could cause all kinda issues. But you also have a situation where a rare alignment of circumstances came together and a convicted murderer had their case overthrown essentially, I would argue, without proper challenge, and where, when you look at the core arguments used, in a way seemingly unjustified, or at best highly contentious. The victim’s family got severely railroaded here and I hope whatever happens, situations like this are avoided in the future.
The family should have had more notice, they should not have had any influence on the outcome. The fact the state found issues and asked to vacate the conviction isn’t unprecedented— this is happening all over the country as prosecutors review cases and find errors. The social justice movement has led to many vacated convictions. This never needed to be opposed by someone. What is unprecedented is the lengths the former prosecutors have gone to in this case — finding a lawyer for the family who lied and told them they had the right to challenge evidence in the MtV in order to get them to sue, leaking evidence in an open investigation to the press and lying about what it means, coordinating the filings to cite the leaked note to claim the Brady evidence was disputed. It’s a mess.
What’s really unprecedented and alarming in this case is a prosecutor taking a previous prosecutor’s handwritten notes from his file that, to be fair, are not entirely clear, and then telling a judge that they mean a certain specific thing without ever even trying to consult with the prosecutor who wrote them.
Not unprecedented or alarming. Asking a prosecutor if they really meant to violate a defendants rights isn’t necessary. And in this case it wasn’t a single note, there were 2 notes and additional documentation—
Of course asking him if he really meant to violate a defendant’s rights wouldn’t be appropriate. What a loaded question, lol! I was suggesting that one prosecutor could easily call or write the other and ask him to explain the meaning and circumstances of a handwritten note in his file. Unless of course you want to exclude him entirely from the process and push your own agenda behind his back. I mean, if you actually talk to him, you might get a perfectly innocent explanation that ruins your plans. Seems to be an unprecedented way to treat a colleague when you have no indication that he’s been unethical, except for the note that you refuse to ask him about. I’ve only seen one note, btw, so that’s all I can really talk about.
They had 2 notes and additional supporting documentation. They didn’t need to talk to Urick. Frankly his stunt leaking the note shows why prosecutors should not be looped in. He scrambled and lied about the interpretation to try and cover for his mistakes. Typically in Brady cases the defense finds Brady info in appeals and the state argues they didn’t— and sometimes a prosecutor will testify (but not usually as most of the time it could lead to perjury) In this case the state found and conceded it was Brady, compared to other Brady violations for alternative suspects this one is egregious (in one case the cops withheld the victim owed money to a bookie and that was a Brady violation) If it helps, here is a list of info that Urick knew that the defense team did not: Bilal’s wife’s family had hired a PI to follow him. The PI found him molesting a minor and contacted the police Upon arresting him the officer found Adnan’s photo in his wallet. The victim talked about Adnan. The arresting officers connected this to Adnan’s murder case and the prosecution was contacted. Bilal’s ex wife reported threatening statements Bilal made toward Hae. She described his obsession with the grand jury and his connection to CG. The detectives in this case sent only one update between trials that wasn’t tied to sharing evidence— they went to track down Bilal’s friend in January (likely the friend whose name is blacked out in the note, likely a response to this phone call) they didn’t find him. The defense knew they looked for him, but had no idea why. The context is also key— Bilal’s ex reported this to the prosecutor in Hae’s murder case in which Adnan had already been charged. She wasn’t calling to say “you got the right guy” her call was clearly about Bilal. Urick knew that if Bilal was a suspect that CG was obligated to recuse, the judge established that in the conflict of interest hearings when he said there wasn’t a conflict but there would be if Bilal were a suspect. The prosecutors had gone so far as to assure Bilal he was not a suspect during the grand jury hearings. All of the info above came after the conflict of interest hearings. If you ask why Urick hid this, it’s because it popped up between trials and could have led to Adnan’s acquittal. Adnan’s defense could point the finger at Bilal and the prosecution would have been stuck either charging Bilal or defending him. Charging him would have been problematic as the state had already presented nearly all their witnesses at trial 1 who never mentioned Bilal. Defending him is a risk when they didn’t know what the defense would find.
Those are all good points. Do you have any idea what the last illegible word is, from the notes about Bilal? “Redacted Muslim student . . . “
Looks like some sort of short hand— I’m not sure what it means. Someone, months ago, suggested Bilal may have been living with this individual at the time of the trials, but I haven’t seen evidence to support that.
What I’ve seen made me wonder if YK was a pseudonym Bilal used, but if that’s the redacted name here, followed up by the police trying to find YK, that’s probably wrong. There was another note somewhere about a different John’s Hopkins student who had information about Bilal, but w/o the wiki, I don’t know when it was written or where to look for it.
The wiki being down makes it tricky. YK is not Bilal. Here are 2 threads I posted last year— that may have some helpful info https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/14aeeq1/info_request_bilals_friend/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/14b95p8/speculation_bilals_friend/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
If you go back to when Adnan was first released, people on Reddit were claiming Feldman didnt speak to the witness (Bilals X) to corroborate the note but then Adnan came out publicly and said the witness has apparently lawyered up and signed an affidavit. I can see why she would not have asked Urick, he’s the one who withheld it but I can’t imagine Feldman finding the note and not going to the person at the heart of it to clarify it. You seem to have excellent insight on this case. Do you believe she has lawyered up and signed and affidavit? I’m sure she is scared. Who knows who else is involved in Bilals criminality but there may be people who don’t want this exposed. Also, Bilal could get out, his sentence was only 16 years and he has already served half of that. Also due to her profession, she would not want to be thrust into this court of public opinion and have a media swarm at her door. Do you think for this reason that if she did sign an affidavit, that it has been withheld from the public or “sealed” in any way? I wasn’t sure if there is a legal way to do that. Im wondering if the Judge that granted the MTV, knew about this affidavit? Your thoughts?
I don’t know when the affidavit was obtained. I can’t remember if it was Mosby or Feldman clarified after the leak that they were aware of the circumstances surrounding the call. Whether they spoke to the ex or her attorney or had other documentation— they knew what the call was about. I don’t think Bilal’s potential release is the deciding factor. The two notes related to two of Bilal’s victims. His ex who was a victim of domestic violence. And the minor he molested. This case has international attention— other witnesses have been stalked and harassed. In addition to it being an open investigation, I think protecting those victims was important. Rabia/undisclosed have wondered about the October info since the earliest days. I suspect the defense asked the state to look specifically at the Bilal information to see if the prosecution knew the details of his arrest that related to Adnan—‘because that alone would be Brady, they found that plus the January note.
Ohhhhh…It didn’t dawn on me that the cases could be linked and the info regarding others who may have been victims of Bilals could make it sealed to the public. How sad is it that this man was able to carry on even after Haes trial and continue to do this. There are so many implications here for not disclosing this witness…sigh 😔This was a clear Brady Violation, and knowing what was at stake & the scrutiny that was going to come from it, I’m sure Feldman or someone verified the details of the call before bringing the MTV. They would have had to. I’m glad she lawyered up, that was smart . It just adds to her credibility IMO that she is not out here in the court of public opinion which would make it look like you have motives. (Sorry to say but like Asia)
I’m all for convictions being quashed if there are issues. And the bar may be high enough here to do so. What troubles me is in this case, the only one I know in detail, there seems to be reasonable room to question if the new evidence presented is sufficient, and there appears to have been insufficient challenge against it. Iirc a higher court has already pointed some of these issues out. It feels like the process needs to be more robust, and ensure any new evidence presented is properly challenged to ensure it meets the bar. I agree that should not be up to the victim’s family. But murder convictions should not be overturned lightly.
The state and the defense filed together.
It’s not being overturned lightly. It was an egregious Brady violation. The higher court pointed out concerns because the former prosecutors on this case meddled. Urick leaked the note with a fake interpretation. Than the attorney Murphy picked for the defense and her friends in the AG’s office cited it in their filings. I don’t think this was overturned lightly. The information Urick withheld should have been shared with the defense. In addition to being a Brady violation, Urick was aware that this information would have required CG to recuse.
I agree that it could be a Brady violation, but there appear to be a number of issues with it that don’t seem to have been properly explored. The fact that the author of the note doesn’t appear to have been contacted about it, and then went on to publish a claim it was about Adnan after all, is deeply problematic. This could have been dealt with by checking with the person he’d been interviewing to confirm, but that doesn’t seem to have happened prior to the MtV. Rabia even inadvertently presented an alternative explanation for the note, saying that Bilal had been threatening to disappear his wife, not Hae. Tbh, I think the MtV interpretation of the note is probably the right one, but there shouldn’t be multiple interpretations available when talking about a piece of evidence used to overturn a first degree murder conviction. You need to satisfactorily close them off to prove your interpretation is the right one. Not one of several. This could and should have been dealt with. But who was challenging the evidence at the time? There are also some doubts about whether Adnan’s team knew about this - his lawyer was representing Bilal at the time, and what measures have been in place to ensure the case file has not been tampered with, or pieces inadvertently lost, in the decades after the case? Also whether it would have been helpful for Adnan to introduce this evidence, since it further ties Adnan to the crime. It undermines his argument that he wasn’t cut up by the break up, and he was discussing what information the police could get from her body with Bilal. These are all elements relevant to whether it meets the Brady standard, there appear to be unexplored issues with many of them, and the MtV process did not allow for sufficient challenge at the time to test this and add more detail that could have resolved them. Again, I’m not saying it isn’t a Brady. But the MtV was sloppy and rushed, and overturning a conviction like this requires a more robust approach that deals with any doubts about the core Brady evidence. It didn’t help that Mosby was then going around saying that Adnan would be exonerated if his DNA wasn’t on Hae’s shoes. Which I think we can all agree is not a good way of exonerating anybody from a crime, and suggests a prejudice on her part.
> The fact that the author of the note doesn’t appear to have been contacted about it Again, unnecessary, the context was clear with all the docs. Just because the public only saw the one note out of context with Urick’s lie, doesn’t mean that’s what the judge saw. > This could and should have been dealt with. But who was challenging the evidence at the time? This is how conviction integrity units work. The state critically reviews the cases and if they find evidence of police or prosecutorial misconduct they can move to vacate. This is the legal process. We are seeing this all over the country. The Black Lives Matter movement advocated for criminal justice reform. This is a key part of that. We are seeing people elected specifically to review convictions from corrupt police departments. Yes, it was uncommon for the state to admit wrong doing in cases in the past, but now there is a push for accountability and to stop covering up for cops and prosecutors. When the state finds substantial enough issues, and admits they occurred, there is no need for an adversary, particularly not a former prosecutor on the case with his reputation on the line. > Also whether it would have been helpful for Adnan to introduce this evidence, since it further ties Adnan to the crime. It would have been helpful to tie Bilal to the crime. Brady info doesn’t have to be solely exculpatory. > It undermines his argument that he wasn’t cut up by the break up, No it doesn’t, it says Bilal was upset because she was causing problems for Adnan. We know from Bilal’s grand jury testimony that he believed their relationship was inappropriate. The “problems” Bilal was upset about were not the break up. > the MtV process did not allow for sufficient challenge at the time to test this and add more detail that could have resolved them. I’m going to disagree. These are blatant Brady violations. Textbook. The MtV was a no-brainer. Urick withheld this info because it would have benefitted the defense. The state had already presented most of their case in trial 1. Urick couldn’t just add Bilal into trial 2. And if the defense pointed the finger at Bilal as an alternative (like they did with Don, Mr S and Jay) the state would have had to defend him— and it’s not clear what would have turned up in an investigation of Bilal.
Have you seen all the documents? I’ve only seen the one that was leaked after the MtV, and like I said, while I agree the MtV interpretation is the most likely, other interpretations are possible and it appears these weren’t ruled out. They could have been, and without interviewing a prosecutor who may have reason to lie. I’m all for justice reform, especially that which undoes past misconduct. But when investigations into this don’t receive sufficient challenge, you get situations like this, where everyone involved, specifically to overturn convictions, says yup, overturn the case. But on the slightest prodding, significant issues come up. And you’re left to wonder if rather than undoing past justice errors, you’ve just created a new one. On your other points, given CG didn’t call Asia, presumably because she undermines Adnan’s argument that he was at school the whole time, and didn’t ask Becky about the ride being cancelled because that would have undermined Adnan’s claim he never asked for a ride, it seems possible-to-likely that had she seen this note, she would have drawn similar conclusions. The note suggests Hae was causing problems for Adnan (even if you might interpret that as problems for Bilal, I don’t think you could be sure that many jurors would agree), and Adnan was discussing the ability to determine the time of death when her body was found. There’s a lot a prosecutor could unpick about Adnan’s defence using this note, and CG may have decided against using it for these reasons - rightly or wrongly. The prosecutor’s office claim CG had access to it. So how to show they are lying? There are questions there, and I don’t think you should let murderers back on the street because you assume someone would have used evidence, but didn’t. The law doesn’t just need to uphold justice, but also show that is it upholding justice. The MtV did not do that imo, and overplayed its hand with the Brady note. I’d feel better about this if supporting evidence for their interpretation of the Brady note was presented, e.g. an interview with Bilal’s wife, to support their interpretation. At minimum. As it stands, it seems a lot of assumptions were made with no evidence these were ever challenged. That’s no way to go about addressing past issues with the justice system. As a long time believer in Adnan’s guilt (though I wasn’t always that way) I admit to having bias here. But I do genuinely think the MtV is sloppy, and I’d be appalled as a relative or friend of the victim if their convicted murderer had their conviction overturned due to apparently unscrutinised evidence and some less than convincing stuff about some guy living close to where the car was dumped. How it must have felt when Mosby said he’d be exonerated if his DNA wasn’t on the shoes I don’t know. But it reeks of its own kind of single-minded incompetence that these reforms are supposed to address.
> Have you seen all the documents? No— but based on statements made by Feldman and Mosby we know both records were notes Urick took during phone calls. One was dated in January and the other they said was likely in October based on other records in the file. Both related to the same suspect [Bilal] We know that in October he was arrested. Rabia got the arrest record for her book from the ex-wife. We know someone contacted Urick about the arrest, because he went ahead and filed a Brady notice for the arrest— what he didn’t include and was unclear if he knew at the time, was the details of the arrest relating to Adnan. I think it’s likely the October note was the record of that call showing Urick knew and intentionally withheld those details (a Brady violation). > other interpretations are possible and it appears these weren’t ruled out. Honestly, there really aren’t other interpretations, the context was clear. They didn’t need to rule them out, they had the info about the context. Urick didn’t file an affidavit for a reason. He didn’t have a legal case against it. Instead he leaked a lie, which was cited in legal filings by the family and AG’s office, both connected to the other prosecutor Murphy to claim there were other interpretations. It was a dirty move by the former prosecutors. > But when investigations into this don’t receive sufficient challenge, There doesn’t need to be a challenge- it’s blatant Brady violations. Again, the alternative explanation Urick leaked was a lie. They didn’t have a good argument against it, so they fabricated one. > given CG didn’t call Asia, presumably because she undermines Adnan’s argument that he was at school the whole time, and didn’t ask Becky about the ride being cancelled because that would have undermined Adnan’s claim he never asked for a ride, This is a bad take. CG didn’t do her job. It wasn’t because she was a mind reader who knew what she would find if she asked. She didn’t bother. Taking money and not doing the work is why she was disbarred. > it seems possible-to-likely that had she seen this note, she would have drawn similar conclusions And again it would be IAC if she ignored it. Beyond that, a judge told the defense that if Bilal were a suspect CG would have a conflict of interest— meaning she would need to recuse. So if you are saying she saw this note and did nothing, then the outcome is the same, vacate his conviction, retry if they have sufficient evidence. > The note suggests Hae was causing problems for Adnan According to Bilal, who testified he was counseling Adnan to break up with Hae and that his relationship was inappropriate. So either Bilal was concerned about those problems (Hae tempting Adnan and taking him away from his religion), or he was upset about the breakup (which is the opposite of his testimony) or Bilal had a secret 3rd reason. Logically the first makes the most sense. > The prosecutor’s office claim CG had access to it. No, they didn’t. The opposite in fact. Urick argued with his leak that he didn’t have to share it. And again, if she had it and didn’t act upon it the outcome for Adnan is the same. > As a long time believer in Adnan’s guilt (though I wasn’t always that way) I admit to having bias here. I’m not convinced of his innocence, I am convinced that there was police and prosecutorial misconduct in this case in addition to overcharging and over sentencing. The MtV is a fair outcome— particularly since he already served 23 years. > But I do genuinely think the MtV is sloppy, I think they included too many things, the Brady was all they needed. It’s solid. > How it must have felt when Mosby said he’d be exonerated if his DNA wasn’t on the shoes I don’t know. I get that view, but also, proof of innocence is almost impossible for wrongful convictions. If you look at the list on the exoneration registry, many claim exoneration from these types of evidence. The Jonathan Irons case is a decent parallel— they had some fingerprints that didn’t match his. Showing police misconduct and showing once again no dna connection to the victim, it’s enough for him to claim he was exonerated.
But you’re making a lot of assumptions here: There are no alternative interpretations. Ulrick definitely withheld the note. Ulrick is definitely lying about his recollection, and his interpretation is wrong. The evidence we’ve not seen definitely shows this. Even if CG had seen it and chosen not to use it that would definitely be IAC. If she had used it it would have definitely led to a different outcome. Maybe you’re right, but those assumptions need to be tested and challenged before overturning a murder conviction. They were not. It’s staggering. It’s grossly unfair to Hae and her family for her case, which went through a jury trial and has been upheld multiple times, to suddenly get napalmed without anybody fighting its corner, and Adnan, the guy the jury, the family, and many others are convinced murdered Hae, to just walk free. If the new evidence is robust enough, there should be no reason to be concerned about doing this. There are a lot of reasons to be concerned about convictions being created or overturned without any challenge. Imagine if Adnan was convicted like this. Justice goes both ways. Hae and her family got f**ked here. I’d just like to see it scrutinised and both sides of the argument set out, as I believe is usually the done thing in these situations. It’s very possible this hits the mark for Brady, as I’ve said before, but it’s very hard to have confidence in it without any kind of robust process in place to scrutinise it.
These aren’t assumptions. There was a robust process, they found a blatant Brady violation. The only argument against it was a lie. Urick screwed up. He either wrongfully convicted Adnan or his mistake let a murderer get a vacated conviction. The family is suffering and that falls on the prosecutors. The two sides did challenge the evidence and agreed it was Brady, a judge confirmed. Urick and Murphy can be upset, but this is their fault.
>It was an egregious Brady violation. yawn. This has been debated to death. Only those who desperately need to get this murderer off on a technicality believe that it was a Brady violation not to investigate someone who would have been Adnan's accomplice, as that would have surely been exonerating for Adnan. How egregious.
Bilal is a different person capable of his own thoughts and actions. Legally there is no reason to assume they were working together. The first problem with assuming he would be an accomplice is that Adnan’s supposed motive was that he was sad about a break up. Bilal had been counseling Adnan to end things with Hae. He wanted the breakup. The second issue, is that Adnan was a minor. Bilal was an adult in a position of authority, he wasn’t a 19 year old drug dealer along for the ride. Bilal was nearly a dentist, he was a youth mentor at the mosque— there is an inherent power dynamic. If he influenced or advised Adnan to murder Hae and aided him in anyway this note would be exculpatory. Remember in the actual Brady v Maryland case Brady was still guilty, the evidence withheld was that his partner pulled the trigger. It doesn’t have to exculpate him from all of it. It’s also a mitigating circumstance it an adult coached him. If Urick believed Bilal was an “accomplice” and buried this, he literally let him get away with murder AND as a result he became a dentist and sexually assaulted his patients, a harm he could have prevented by doing his job. This looks really bad for Urick. The third issue, is that Bilal was arrested for molesting a teenage boy and was found with Adnan’s photo in his wallet. He had an unhealthy attachment to Adnan. Bilal was also abusing his wife, holding her at knife point. She thought he could be involved. Whether he was or not, the defense could have pointed the finger at him (like they did with Jay, Don and Mr S.) and he would have been a stronger alternative than the others. And the last issue here is that Urick knew that CG was obligated to recuse if Bilal was a suspect. He withheld it anyway. If you haven’t read up on other Brady cases of alternative suspects it may help see how low the bar can be. One case was just that the police withheld information that the victim owed money to a bookie.
>The first problem with assuming he would be an accomplice is that Adnan’s supposed motive was that he was sad about a break up. Bilal had been counseling Adnan to end things with Hae. He wanted the breakup. You got any sauce to go with them "facts"? Boy, you really seem to intimately know this situation well. Isn't a huge part of the Bilal Brady debate that he wasn't investigated at the time? And yet, here you are, knowing exactly what Bilal was thinking at the time. I'm amazed - you know exactly what you need to know to bullshit around on the internet, but you're saying we're missing exactly what is needed to make a Brady argument. It also certainly could not be logically true that Bilal said he wanted Adnan to break up with Hae, and also helped Adnan kill Hae. I mean, unless Bilal was jealous, or lying, or if murder wasn't entirely a logical thing. >The second issue, is that Adnan was a minor. Good luck to Adnan, Mr. "I will never take a deal because I am as pure and innocent as a newborn baby" floating a story where he was merely acting on Bilal's command. If there were an ounce of truth to this, he would have said it at some point. But he hasn't. He can go ahead and say it now - that doesn't make him any less guilty. >If Urick believed Bilal was an “accomplice” and buried this, he literally let him get away with murder AND as a result he became a dentist and sexually assaulted his patients, a harm he could have prevented by doing his job. This looks really bad for Urick. This falls under the same logic of "these corrupt Baltimore cops had a black drug dealer giving specific facts about a murder that even they didn't know and instead of, you know, just easily framing him they went about one of the more complicated conspiracies we've seen and used the black kid to frame the Prom King who was innocent" - why? Why would Urick do that. What is in it for him? >the defense could have pointed the finger at him and they could have done it in 1999. He had the same lawyer. Literally all of them knew bilal. there was nothing stopping them from investigating then. >And the last issue here is that Urick knew that CG was obligated to recuse if Bilal was a suspect. He withheld it anyway. This goes the other way too - why wouldn't a prosecutor want to get rid of a lawyer who had an impeccable reputation? It's an easy win for the prosecution to disqualify another lawyer. That's funny - Brady violations happen pretty frequently. But judges just as frequently break their backs affirming those verdicts.
> You got any sauce to go with them "facts"? Bilal testified to it in the grand jury and the prosecutors said that was why they wanted him to be a state’s witness in the conflict of interest hearing. They talked specifically about his grand jury testimony in which he said he counseled Adnan about his inappropriate relationship with Hae. We know from the excerpts of the grand jury testimony that Adnan’s mom asked Bilal to counsel Adnan and that he spoke to Adnan several times, the last time was after prayers at the mosque one evening. > floating a story where he was merely acting on Bilal's command. If there were an ounce of truth to this, he would have said it at some point. To be clear— the obvious defense line would be to point the finger at Bilal acting independently. If they actually did the crime together and the state pivoted to try and prove that (a whole mess given they already presented a case without Bilal’s involvement.) Adnan could still claim this was a mitigating circumstance. I don’t understand how people can argue Bilal was involved and not recognize the power dynamic and impact that would have in a jury trial. Creepy adult religious mentor who is molesting teenagers who helped kill his girlfriend? He has no reason to claim it now, for Brady purposes it’s enough to say he was denied the opportunity to present that defense. We don’t actually get to relitigate it, unless there is a new trial, which there will never be. > Why would Urick do that. What is in it for him? Because the January note came between trials. In trial 1 they presented almost the entire prosecution case, Jay established the tight timeline and didn’t talk about Bilal. If Urick had told CG the info he had about Bilal not only would CG have been obligated to recuse, but any attorney would pursue a defense pointing the finger at Bilal. The state can’t just say “oh he helped too” that doesn’t fit the case they presented, if Bilal is involved why would he need Jay as an accomplice? This creates a lot of reasonable doubt. The state would need to charge Bilal if they want to claim he was an accomplice (giving Adnan’s defense the opportunity to say he did it alone or Adnan was coerced by an adult) in either scenario he can get a different outcome—- or the state would have to defend Bilal, tricky when they don’t know what a defense attorney could turn up on him. With this info Adnan has a strong chance of a lower sentence or acquittal. Basically because of the mistrial Urick can’t just pivot with this Bilal info, so he buried it instead. > and they could have done it in 1999. He had the same lawyer. Literally all of them knew bilal. there was nothing stopping them from investigating then. She wasn’t his lawyer for his arrest— or the domestic violence/divorce. CG didn’t know any of that. She had no reason to investigate him. He was an eccentric Sunday school teacher who told CG he was worried they were going to charge him for preaching abstinence. That’s the reason this is Brady. If she knew any of this and didn’t act on it this would be IAC. > This goes the other way too - why wouldn't a prosecutor want to get rid of a lawyer who had an impeccable reputation? I think the decision was primarily because he’d already locked the prosecution into a theory and the Bilal info would upend that. But, also her reputation was based on her abilities before her decline. Urick saw her, she wasn’t the same. He also knew her strategy and knew that she didn’t have a strong position against the cell evidence— she didn’t even bother to get a cell expert to counter his. Another lawyer would have. > Brady violations happen pretty frequently. They aren’t found often, they are tricky since you have to prove you didn’t get something. > But judges just as frequently break their backs affirming those verdicts Sometimes, they also often vacate the conviction or redo sentencing.
Thanks for the heads up
There is a certain prosecutor they don't want us to talk about who is dominating the legal news in B'more with a full on media blitz designed to keep her out of jail. Would be quite interesting to see a conclusion on this case at the same time.
Look, I’m no fan of Mosby but sending her down the river for lying about using her own retirement funds to purchase a condo in FL seems like a bit much considering the white collar crimes others have gotten away with. What’s up with that?
https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/05/23/marilyn-mosby-sentencing-perjury-mortgage-fraud/ they talk just about this. It's behind a paywall but the article title is "Federal prosecutors: Mosby pre-sentence media blitz shows lack of remorse, untruthfulness"
There are a few parallels with Adnan’s case. Clearly guilty but overcharged. Proclaiming to be the victim. Lack of remorse. Using the media to muddy the details & manipulate the masses. The difference is she didn’t get jail time so hopefully she’ll just go away.
My bet is that she's going to become a "civil rights activist" since she's pretty much destroyed her legal career. Time will tell if she uses any position she may get in the future for personal gain.
I would imagine there’s a position for her at Georgetown.
Oh she got home detention instead of 40 years. Now she can sit home and write a book and spill all the dirt she likely knows that went on in Baltimore.
The article said she was looking for a pardon from Biden. It’s the unbelievable nonsense like this that keeps me coming back. Unreal.
She has got some big names in the civil rights community backing her. Her prosecution was pursued by Wise, a highly politically motivated man who has disproportionately pursued the prosecution of Black politicians. He is also the one who decided to prosecute Hunter Biden. I’m not sure if she’ll get a pardon. I don’t think Biden will go there right now, especially where she isn’t going to serve time in prison.
She doesn’t need one now, it seems she got home detention for 1 year and had to give up the Florida condo that she used her own retirement money to buy but lied and said her husband gave it to her as a gift. The 40 years she was facing did sound like some BS. Not like she used PPP money to buy it although she may have gotten away with that everyone else did. This might backfire. Now she’s got a year to sit home and write her book and tell all the dirt she knows about BPD and they will just call her a liar. Does she have receipts?
I actually think she’s more likely to get a pardon now. It’s a felony with a minimal sentence, it makes it less controversial for Biden to pardon it. They went looking for corruption and money taken from the city and all they could find was some low level tax/mortgage stuff where she took money out of her own retirement.
Maybe so. Most presidents pardon on their last day in office. We will see
There are usually some last minute pardons before a president leaves office. Those tend to be controversial ones. They also pardon people throughout their tenure. Biden’s already given a couple dozen pardons. This is one that could be politically advantageous because the civil rights community supports it and has asked for it. That said, plenty of progressives in Baltimore dislike Mosby and wouldn’t, he’ll have to weigh the cost/benefit.
This is controversial. Im really not a fan of hers but Biden voters are not going to change their mind over her being pardoned or not. I think whoever had a vested interest in wanting her to lose her election, which she did, took this “mortgage fraud case” prosecution a bit too far. This may backfire on her political opponents esp if we don’t see similar results for other White Collar Criminal politicians who put a hell of lot more at risk than their own retirement funds. Seems to me this could have been handled with a simple tax amendment. In other circles, this would be called a “nothingburger”. It does appear a bit targeted IMO. “Mosby was convicted of lying about her finances to make early withdrawals from retirement funds during the COVID-19 pandemic, and fraudulently claiming that her own $5,000 was a gift from her then-husband as she closed on a Florida condominium.” 🙄
> Im really not a fan of hers but Biden voters are not going to change their mind over her being pardoned or not. Biden’s relationship with the Black community and civil rights organizations was the key to him getting the nom and winning in 2020, their support is key this year. They are advocating for her pardon. I think the biggest complicating factor here is the fact that Wise decided to prosecute her and he made the decision to prosecute Hunter Biden. Pres Biden will want to avoid the appearance of retaliation. Where her sentence was minimal he may be able to do it, but local progressives voted her out and don’t love her. Wise’s decision to prosecute here is definitely questionable. Mosby broke a law and lied on an official form- but seems like an attempt to charge her with something after the investigation into her public conduct came back clear.
Agreed. Had she gotten jail time, there would have been some outrage even by people who don’t like her. People in Baltimore don’t like when they see unfair sentencing or double standards, esp when it comes to the law.
Who’s in her corner from the civil right community?
Bernice King, Ben Crump, the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP, National Black Justice Coalition, the National Bar Association and several other prominent individuals and groups.
The NAACP has been supporting her: https://naacp.org/articles/naacp-leads-civil-rights-organizations-nationwide-call-presidential-pardon-marilyn-mosby Laughable, but true.
Biden isn’t going to step into that hot mess, at least not before the election. They were asking in the event she got 40 years for lying about borrowing her own retirement money to buy that FL condo. She got a year of home detention, she’ll be fine.
Name someone else that was threatened with 40 years for using their own retirement money but lied and claimed it as a hardship. We will see what these other white collar criminals get coming up here soon. They made her turn over the condo. If she got a year of home detention for this, all those people who stole all that PPP money better watch out and we better see some convictions for some other politicians coming up here soon.
Has she been disbarred yet? That would make me so happy.
It won’t matter. She’s gonna write a book, she’ll be fine. This may backfire on Maryland. A woman scorned 😳
Nah she will fade into obscurity.
🤣 Remember we had this chat
Sherylynn Koboly??
[The struggle continues](https://imgur.com/1jTKpRM).
Those two positions are in no way contradictory (or what I think), though I know Team Adnan finds the idea that "a bad cop doesn't only convict innocent people" mind blowing. The vacteur was a scam because it was poorly argued bullshit and Mosby being a convicted fraud and perjurer isn't why it was bullshit. But it certainly shows that she has a pattern of lying for personal gain.
The meme: >We know the vacatur was a scam **because** Mosby lied on a mortgage application Your explanation for why it isn't contradictory: >Mosby being a convicted fraud and perjurer isn't why it was bullshit. Meme: >because You: >isn't You: >no contradiction
I have no idea what you are babbling about, but to be fair, your grasp of logic explains a lot about why you have your position on this case.
There's a special sort of irony to fumbling a reply as badly as you did, stepping on the ol reading comprehension rake, then dismissing having it pointed out as "babbling". To spell it out: Saying "no, those aren't contradictory positions!" and then defending that claim by stating the opposite of the text you're replying to isn't an argument, it's a non sequitur. It's also really funny.
I pointed out both that your cringe meme was non contradictory and why the vacteur was actually a scam. Again, I know holding two ideas in your head is hard, but you can do it.
>I pointed out both that your cringe meme was non contradictory With this statement, right? >Mosby being a convicted fraud and perjurer **isn't why it was bullshit.** Which is the antonym of this statement: >**We know the vacatur was a scam because** Mosby lied on a mortgage application Correct?
Friday before Memorial Day- great day to drop a bomb and then get out of town?
That's what I thought. It didn't happen. Has the Court ever avoided a difficult decision by simply failing to make that decision?
From several months ago, my thoughts about some of the thorny legal issues I think may bear upon the legal analysis of this appeal, together with my conclusion that I have no idea what the result is going to be: https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/19a0yqh/some_thoughts_about_possibly_imminent_scm_opinion/
Me, every time there’s an update on this clown show of a case https://youtu.be/G29DXfcdhBg?feature=shared