Serial Podcast, Episode 10: The Best Defense is a Good Defense - Ian Ammerman & Zachary English
The tenth episode of the Serial podcast series turns the attention of the listeners from the witnesses and evidence to the execution of the trial itself. Presenter Sarah Koenig investigates into a couple of contested aspects of the trial. First, did racism and other biases have a role to play in the proceedings and eventual conviction of Adnan Syed? Second, is his defense attorney, Cristina Gutierrez, to blame for his conviction due to the sloppy and irresponsible navigation of the trial? Koenig takes a look at these two questions through the testimony of witnesses, tapes of court proceedings, a testimony from her own law clerk, and a full discussion with Adnan Syed himself.
To start the discussion on discrimination in the trial, let's first turn out attention to Adnan's support from the community. At his bail hearing, seated in the stands, were friends, family, neighbors, religious figureheads, and others from the Muslim community. Such a presence for a bail hearing, particularly for one person, is fairly unique. Bail hearings on a whole are generally informal affairs compared to an actual criminal trial. In attendance will be the prosecution, the defense, and perhaps some family or close friends of the defendant. That said, these hearings are generally pretty small, without the large audience present at many trials. Such devotion and support from the community demonstrates the extent to which the members of Baltimore's Muslim community are involved in each other's lives as well as the sheer passion they have for each other. It is important to note that these men and women weren't just there for the support of Adnan in an emotional sense. Many of them offered up tens of thousands of dollars, some even offering to take out leans on their properties to help pay for bail or other legal fees associated with a criminal trial.
To the average person, such a vast amount of support may look good for Adnan. It shows that he is a good person, with a lot of people vouching for his character. After all, solid character witnesses can significantly impact the final sentence of a defendant. That said, some people did not see the support in such a positive light. Vicki Wash, the prosecutor at the bail hearing, used the community presence against Adnan:
Your honor, the fact that the defendant has strong support from the community, that is what makes him unique in this case. He is unique because he has limitless resources, he has the resources of this entire community here. Investigation reveals that he can tag resources from Pakistan as well. It’s our position your honour that if you issue a bail, then you are issuing him a passport under these circumstances to flee the country. We do not want another Sheinbein situation your honor. We are asking you-The end of Wash's quote is where the presiding judge, David Mitchell, interrupted her by saying that he wasn't going to take it, "it" referring to Wash's reference to another case in which a Pakistani boy was able to flee to Pakistan to escape conviction in the United States. Wash is using racist stereotypes of Muslims to convince the judge that Adnan is planning to flee to Pakistan, a country from which we could not extradite him, in order to escape his crimes. Wash's argument is a prime example of the racist ideals that found themselves at home at Adnan's hearings and trials.
Regardless of any racism or other discrimination involved in Adnan's trail, it can also be argued that his defense attorney Cristina Gutierrez performed poorly in all aspects of the ordeal and ultimately cost Adnan his freedom. First, Koenig takes a look at the first trial and explains how she feels that Gutierrez spoiled it for Adnan. During the trial, as a piece of cell phone evidence was about to be presented, Gutierrez claimed to the court that she had never seen it before. In response to her statement, the judge called her out and accused her of lying in a bench conference. During this conference, the jury overheard the judge call Gutierrez a liar and asked if she would be removed from the trial. Upon hearing of the jury's disdain, Gutierrez motioned for a mistrial on the basis that the jury will not believe her now that the judge has called her a liar. Her motion was carried.
In the second trial Gutierrez was confident, according to her law clerk Julie Remy. Her main defense, as in the first trial, was to go on the offensive. Throughout the trial she threw suspicion around the room using the evidence available in the case, but her main focus was on Jay, particularly after she learned that the prosecution had given Jay access to a private lawyer. Gutierrez took this evidence and ran with it. In her mind, Jay's state provided access to a private lawyer was the golden ticket she needed to deliver a substantial blow to the prosecution. She claimed that by providing a private lawyer to Jay, the state was influencing the witness. The benefit here would be that Jay would be in debt to the state for helping him, and therefore pressured to help their case. The defense had not been informed of the appointment of the lawyer, and Gutierrez claimed that it was patently improper Her argument was not upheld by the judge at the time. The trial was downhill from here.
During the second trial, the main defense for Adnan was to accuse Jay of the crime. Gutierrez cross-examined Jay extensively in order to first discredit him, presenting evidence along the way. The main issue with her actions is that her presentation seemed sloppy and confusing for the court to follow. One juror, a man named Theodore Wojtas, claimed that while Gutierrez did speak a lot and provided a lot of evidence, she did not tie it into a singular point. In his eyes, she didn't manage to prove anything concretely. In defense of Gutierrez, not tying up the loose ends in her examination could have been an intentional strategy. Often it is a good idea to leave these loose threads and to not come to a point right away. Instead, it is better to wait for the testimony section of the trial to be over, at which point you tie up the loose ends and ideas into one concrete argument that is much harder to take down. At the closing of the trial, Gutierrez does revisit the loose ends from earlier but was unable to discredit Jay in the eyes of the jury. The rest of her points were even sloppier than her attempt to discredit Jay. When attempting to discredit the cell phone evidence, she made a weak argument that a different brand of phone was used to test the sites than Adnan's. Not only does the brand of phone make no difference, but she failed to attack the state's timeline and how it does not line up with Jay's for several hours of the day.
Aside from her performance inside of the courtroom, Gutierez's behavior in all aspects of her interaction with clients could be described as odd and even suspicious. Her worrisome behavior is evident in another case, that of a fifteen-year-old boy named Zach Whitman. He was accused and ultimately convicted, of killing his younger brother Greg who was thirteen at the time. The boys' parents, Ron and Sue Whitman, describe their experience with Gutierrez. In the beginning, things seemed to be going well, Gutierrez argued some important motions pretrial and she was described as brilliant in the courtroom. Soon, however, her performance began to deteriorate. It started with her punctuality. She would be late filing briefs for the court to the point that they had just minutes to spare before the deadline. By the end of the year 2000 Gutierrez had been hospitalized for a significant amount of time. She had been diagnosed with diabetes and MS. Despite her severe illness, she would still attempt to keep up with the case and had her clerks bring files to her in the hospital. In hindsight, it should have been apparent that she was unfit to be working but nobody said anything about it.
By the spring of 2001, Gutierrez's career was over. She had gotten into serious trouble with the Attorney Grievance Commision of Maryland over the gross misuse of client money. She would often ask for money and proceed to ignore what she claimed she was to do with the money. One such case was when she asked Adnan's mother for 10,000 dollars in cash to hire an expert and then never did. In the Whitman case, Gutierrez asked for close to $100,000 in total for the hiring of experts and other work that in the end she didn't do at all. She even neglected to pay the experts, who in turn came after the Whitmans for the money. A total of $282,328 was paid out by the commission between 28 separate claims against Gutierrez, the largest being to the Whitmans. They believed that she knew she was slipping and was attempting to squeeze as much money out of her clients as she could before she got caught.
Discussion Questions:
- Did racism or other bias play a role in any stage of the investigation or trial? If so, when and to what extent?
- Were Gutierrez’s methods tactful with good intent, or were they foolish and sloppy?
- If you were Adnan’s defense attorney, how would you go about making his case? Draw comparisons to Gutierrez's approach.
1. Racism was definitely a part of this case. Most prominently in the bail hearing. He was denied bail because of one other case that was kind of similar and because he had the help of a whole community that might have had ties to Pakistan.
ReplyDelete2. Gutierrez's method was done with good intent, however it was executed in a manner that was beyond sloppy and foolish. Had she put more thought into her statements, and maybe taken a moment to listen to herself, her method would have been much better.
3. If I was defending Adnan I would have paid close attention to the cell phone calls and Jay's inconsistencies instead of trying to blame everyone else without having any substantial form of evidence. I would also point out that because the jury is not aloud to be biased by race and religion that no one else should be able to make either into a form of evidence.
1. I think race played a role in Adnan's case because Hae's then current (white) boyfriend Don was interviewed very minimally. This would have been a big piece if Don turned out to lack an alibi or be suspicious in other ways. In the courtroom however, I don't think race played much of a role. The jury had a black majority and race wasn't a main topic of discussion on either side.
ReplyDelete2. I think Gutierrez had good intent, but due to stress (and possibly complications of her age) her methods became sloppy and confusing.
3. I think I would use a similar approach to Gutierrez's methods, though I would try to remain more composure and professionalism throughout the trial.
1. I feel that there was likely some racial bias in the initial phases of the investigation, specifically when they first started pinning Adnan as the primary suspect. After that, I do not believe that the trial was influenced in any significant way by any form of racial bias.
ReplyDelete2. I feel that Gutierrez could have done well using her methods, but she personally made some mistakes that prevented Adnan from being defended properly. If executed in a better manner or by a different defense attorney, I think that the same tactics Gutierrez used could have done much better in the court.
3. If I was his attorney, I would do my best to poke holes in Jay's story. I would do this by examining all of his different stories and the timeline, and show that the cell records do not match (For the most part) and tie it all together at the end. Gutierrez did not do this: she looked at the wrong evidence and portrayed it poorly. She also did not link them together well at all.
1. I believe racism did play a role in this case. I believe during all stages of the trial, the jury, judge, lawyers, and audience were overly conscious of Adnan's race and religion. In a perfect trial, this information would in no way affect their outcome, but I believe it possibly played a minimal role. People's conceptions of what it means to be Muslim very well might have influenced what they thought of Adnan, which in turn could have changed their conviction or lack thereof. That being said, I find it unlikely that Adnan would have been acquitted were he white.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that as we seemed to agree on in class; Gutierrez's strategy was a decent strategy. She was perceived originally as a good lawyer, and the community was excited to have her defend Adnan. Were she a bad lawyer, I doubt she would have had such a great reputation. I think that she just choked on her execution and delivery. I agree with Sophie that we as teenagers likely can't criticize her perfectly, and that she likely knew what she was doing but had just 'lost her edge.'
3. Were I Adnan's lawyer, I would not have done things much different from Gutierrez. As I previously state, she certainly had the right idea. I would just perhaps better prepare myself in hopes of being able to execute things properly. I additionally would attempt to make simple conclusions along the way in order to make sure the jury understood. As Dr. Brigman said, not over explaining your argument before the end is important, because it leaves you open to attacks. But I would certainly make sure the jury didn't get confused before the end, which Gutierrez seemed to fail at.
1. Did racism or other bias play a role in any stage of the investigation or trial? If so, when and to what extent?
ReplyDeleteDuring the bail hearing his race obviously played a role when the prosecutor compared him to another Pakistani Muslim and the judge had to intervene. Over all I’m sure it influenced the jury in some way but I don’t think it was an driving factor in their decision.
1. Were Gutierrez’s methods tactful with good intent, or were they foolish and sloppy?
I don’t think they where to tactful considering they didn’t work. As for her intentions I can’t say for sure only she knows but from her other cases and shady practices it is very plausible.
1. If you were Adnan’s defense attorney, how would you go about making his case? Draw comparisons to Gutierrez's approach.
2. If I was Adnans defense I would have discredited Jays story as much as possible like Gutierrez but more and I would also try to tie it all into one over reaching point about how unsubstantial the prosecutions case was. It seems that his defense did that poorly and I think that was a defining pitfall of Gutierrez.
1. Racism definitely played a role in this case. Most of their case was about him being a muslim of Pakistani descent, and if you take that out, I don't think he would have gotten convicted. It also had a bunch to do with the deprivation of bail and other things.
ReplyDelete2. Her methods could definitely been improved in my opinion. Her burden was not to prove that someone else did it, or even to definitively prove that Adnan did not do it. Our legal system is innocent until proven guilty, so her burden was to prove that they did not prove Adnan did it. If she had gone for a character assassination towards Jay, it would have discredited him, throwing away their whole case.
3. I would use a lot of the same information as Christina, but in different ways. I would choose to target Jay, but not question whether he did it; instead to discredit him in front of the Jury. Christina failed to do this.
1. Racism played a part in this trial mainly during the bail hearing. As Adnan's entire muslim community showed up to support and offer bail money for him, the side against Adnan managed to turn his community's support against him saying they may help him to flee from America and escape trial.
ReplyDelete2. Gutierrez's methods were done with good intent and had the potential to be successful. However, Gutierrez executed these methods very poorly and that fact caused them to fail. SHe managed to lose the entire Jury as she was working through her points causing her defense to become worthless.
3. In this case I would have focused more on pointing out how all of the evidence against Adnan, when researched, contradicted itself and was therefore untrustworthy. Jay's false recounts of situations made him be an untrustworthy source of evidence and how even if there was not much evidence at the time to defend Adnan, there also was not nearly enough reliable evidence to incriminate him.
1. Racism did play a part in the trial especially during the bail hearing. The prosecution used a case of another Pakastani boy who was able to run away due to his connections despite the lack of a similarities between that case and Adnan’s. Additionally. I think that even though the jury tried to be impartial, a little bit of racism crept into their minds anyways in the form of biases like the juror who thought that Mulisms treated their women as second class citizens.
ReplyDelete2. Gutierrez’s methods were effective in the first trial. She seemed to be focused and knew how she was going to lay out her argument. However, in the second trial, while her strategy was good, her execution was bad. She was rambling and took too long to come to her points which ultimately hurt her arguments. If she had presented her case differently, then I believe with her strategy she could have won.
3. If I was Adnan’s attorney I would try to emphasize how the state’s timeline did not add up. Additionally, I would have brought in witnesses like Asia who could have accounted for Adnan’s alibi. I think that if I had been Adnan’s lawyer then I would have tried to defend him and prove his innocence instead of simply accusing other people like Gutierrez did.
1) I believe that racism did play a role in this case. This is shown when the prosecution used Adnan's perceived race and culture in an attempt to prevent him from obtaining bail. No matter how much racism was involved in the rest of the case, this event proved that it was present in the minds of the prosecution and others.
ReplyDelete2) I believe that Gutierrez’s methods had good intent but slowly fell apart during the second trial when she had a break down. The method she was using was a tactic that works but she did not so a good enough execution. She also made a couple of glaring mistakes such as arguing too loudly with the Judge in the first trial, something that may have cost Adnan his freedom.
3) If I was Adnan’s defense attorney I would take a similar tactic as Gutierrez. My goal would be to prove reasonable doubt. I would do this by showing how untrustworthy Jay was, as well as bringing up new possible murderers such as Dawn. I would attempt to convince the jury that Adnan did not commit the murder though porving that others could have done it and are just as likely to be the real culprit.
1) Racism was definitely a part of this trial. It showed strongly in the bail hearing with the whole muslin community supporting him.
ReplyDelete2) Het tactics were valid and smart as trying to prove another party guilty is a valid option in murder cases, but her execution of it was done poorly.
3) I would have done almost exactly what she did but with a more graceful manner. I would have connected my points coherently, played to the jury, and kept a level head showing knowledge and belief in my clients innocents. I would have also gone farther to disprove the prosecution and Jays timeline, and brought up the phone records.
1) Did racism or other bias play a role in any stage of the investigation or trial? If so, when and to what extent?
ReplyDeleteI feel like the there was always an undertone of racism throughout. I feel like the judge and jury would view him differently if he were not muslim. People have assumption of that culture and view them in a negative light before getting to know them.
2) Were Gutierrez’s methods tactful with good intent, or were they foolish and sloppy?
I think that Gutierrez methods were foolish and sloppy. From her previous cases I think Gutierrez has ill intent for some reason. I think Gutierrez lost the jury at the start so that ruined her further defense,
3) If you were Adnan’s defense attorney, how would you go about making his case? Draw comparisons to Gutierrez's approach.
If I were Adnan’s defense attorney, I would tear up Jay’s entire story. I would bring up the missing phonebooth, the cell records, and all the inconsistencies. I would try to convince the judge to make Jay an unreliable witness by proving how his entire story changed over time.
1. I definitely think that racism did play a role in this trial, and although it was not a major contributing factor to the outcome, I do think that it was a factor. Adnan was viewed differently at times because of his race and religion, and many times it was not to his advantage.
ReplyDelete2. I think that Gutierrez's methods were both with good intent, but they were executed sloppy. She made many mistakes and became overly angered during the trial, and this resulted in her losing the case. She did not tie up all of her points clearly and she missed key ideas, such as the incredibility of the states timeline. These ideas could have persuaded the jury to side with Adnan.
3. First, I would question all of Jay's inconsistency and make it clear to the jury that Jay was unreliable and prove that he had lied on numerous occasions. While she does this, I would do it in a more organized and in a manner that involved less yelling. Secondly, I would explain that the cell phone records do not support Jay's story for the first entire part of the day. This either makes the records or Jay unreliable, and either way, it helps Adnan. Lastly, I would have used Asia as an alibi because then Adnan would have a person who could testify to where he was when Hae was supposedly being murdered.
1) Racism certainly played a role in this trial, although I cannot be sure to what extent. Adnan was compared to a Pakistani boy who fled from the country after being let out on bail. This comparison lacked any foundation and was completely uncalled for. Adnan's parents may have been Middle-Eastern, but Adnan is an American citizen, rights and all. Similar forms of stereotyping and other bias were likely present in other situations as well.
ReplyDelete2) In complete honesty, I never trusted Gutierrez. I don't believe she had good intent when participating in Adnan's trial, and her tactics throughout his case were sloppily executed. She lacked emotional control along with any sort of structure to her arguments, a fault that ended in disaster. If her ideas had been clearer and if she had remained professional, I believe Adnan may have won his freedom.
3) Rather than trying to prove Adnan innocent, I would prove that the state had no solid evidence and therefore could not prosecute him. I would mention all of the inconsistencies (particularly regarding Jay's story) and essentially demolish every argument they make. After all, the goal in a trial is to prove that the accused is guilty, NOT that they're innocent.
1)I don't think racism played a role in the trial. This took place before the mass racist movement towards muslims
ReplyDelete2)I think that Gutierrez went into the trials with good intentions, however, much like how sophia said, she may have lost her edge after being a lawyer for too many years.
3)I can't really make a definitive statement on what I would go about making his case, because I don't know much about how lawyer stuff works, however, I think that it would have been right to go sort of the same way that Gutierrez went, and break down Jay so that no one sees him as a reliable source anymore.