answer_1

docx

School

University of Maryland Global Campus (UMGC) *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

335

Subject

Law

Date

Apr 29, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by SuperHumanOxide15731

1 Victims’ Rights & Compliance v. Enforcement: An Analysis of the Adnan Syed Case Name Institutional affiliation Course Tutor Date

2 Victims’ Rights & Compliance v. Enforcement: An Analysis of the Adnan Syed Case Brief overview of the facts of the case Hae Min Lee was high school student who disappeared on January 13, 1999. Her body was found weeks later in a shallow grave in Leakin Park, Baltimore. The prosecution alleged that Adnan Syed killed Lee out of jealousy after their breakup. Adnan Syed was also a high school student at the time. He was arrested and charged with Lee's murder based on testimony from a fellow student, Jay Wilds. The student claimed that Syed had confessed to him. Syed was convicted of first-degree murder in 2000 and sentenced to life in prison. Over the years, Adnan Syed and his legal team have pursued multiple avenues for appeal and post- conviction relief. They have raised various issues, including ineffective assistance of counsel, the reliability of cellphone tower evidence and the failure to investigate an alibi witness. Adnan Syed's case has undergone various legal proceedings, including hearings for post- conviction relief and appeals. In 2016, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals granted Syed a new trial, citing ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the State of Maryland appealed the decision. In 2019, the Maryland Court of Appeals reinstated Syed's conviction, overturning the lower court's decision for a new trial. Syed made an appeal at the state’s supreme court. The victim’s family also filed a petition at the court seeking the victims to be given a larger role in the proceedings to challenge evidence and cross-examine witnesses. Syed is a free man as the case proceeds. Whether a reasonable notice was given to Mr. Lee by the Baltimore City Prosecutor In the case, one of the key issues raised by Adnan Syed's legal team was whether he received reasonable notice from the Baltimore City Prosecutor regarding the potential alibi witness, Asia McClain. Asia McClain claimed to have seen Syed at the Woodlawn Public Library around the time of the victim’s disappearance. This provided a potential alibi for him.

3 The question of whether reasonable notice was given to Mr. Lee by the Baltimore City Prosecutor specifically pertains to whether Syed's defense team was properly informed about Asia McClain's potential alibi testimony (Tobia, 2018). If the prosecution had information about Asia McClain's alibi and failed to disclose it to the defense, this could constitute a violation of Syed's constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial. From the case, it is notable that the prosecution failed to disclose Asia McClain's potential alibi testimony in a timely manner to Mr. Lee. To this extent, the inescapable conclusion is that the accused was not given reasonable notice. How a reasonable notice impacts a victim’s ability to be present at a trial or a hearing. A reasonable notice plays a critical role in safeguarding the rights of victims and promoting their meaningful participation in the criminal justice process. It helps ensure fairness, transparency, and respect for victims' interests, while also contributing to the effective administration of justice (Kaplan et al., 2021). There is no doubt that a reasonable notice plays a critical role in impacting a victim’s ability to be present in a trial or a hearing. Firstly, a reasonable notice gives victims adequate time to prepare for their participation in a trial or hearing. This includes arranging for time off from work, making travel arrangements if necessary, and consulting with legal representatives or support persons. Without sufficient notice, victims may be unprepared to participate effectively in the proceedings. Moreover, providing reasonable notice helps minimize disruption to victims' lives and schedules. By giving victims advance notice of trial dates, hearings, and other proceedings, they can plan accordingly and minimize any inconvenience or disruption caused by their participation in the legal process.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 How presence impacts a victim’s ability to be heard The presence of a victim at legal proceedings can significantly impact their ability to be heard in several ways. Notably, when a victim is present at a trial or hearing, they have the opportunity to provide direct testimony about their experiences, perspectives, and the impact of the crime on their lives. Their presence allows them to share their story in their own words. This can have a powerful effect on the court and other parties involved in the proceedings. Moreover, the presence of a victim in the courtroom can enhance the credibility and persuasiveness of their testimony. Judges and jurors may find it easier to connect with and empathize with a victim who is present in person, rather than relying solely on written statements or hearsay evidence (Walklate et al., 2018). The emotional impact of seeing and hearing directly from the victim can strengthen the impact of their testimony. Whether the prosecutor in the case complied with Article 47 of the Maryland Constitution requiring that “A victim of crime shall be treated by agents of the state with dignity, respect, and sensitivity during all phases of the criminal justice process”. Article 47 of the Maryland Constitution requires that victims of crime should be treated with dignity, respect, and sensitivity during all phases of the criminal justice process. The principles espoused in this law are important because they encompass considerations such as providing victims with support services, ensuring their participation and input in legal proceedings, and respecting their rights and interests. This matter was not directly addressed by the courts in the context of the prosecution's conduct. Whether the actions of the prosecutor in the Adnan Syed case fully complied with these principles would depend on the existence of any allegations or evidence of misconduct or improper treatment of the victim. While the courts did not explicitly address this issue in

5 their rulings, there is a reason to believe that the prosecution may have violated some aspects of Article 47 of the Maryland Constitution. The processes that the prosecutor could have established to ensure that there were no questions that Mr. Lee had been afforded all his rights under Maryland law. To ensure that Mr. Lee's rights under Maryland law were respected and that there were no questions about whether he had been afforded all his rights, the prosecutor could have established several processes. Firstly, the prosecutor could have implemented a clear and comprehensive victim notification protocol to ensure that Mr. Lee was informed of his rights throughout the criminal justice process. Secondly, the prosecutor could have assigned an advocate to Mr. Lee to provide support, guidance, and information about his rights and options. Finally, the prosecutor could have maintained regular communication with Mr. Lee to keep him informed of the progress of the case. These may include issues such as any plea negotiations or trial preparations and opportunities for victim impact statements or participation in legal proceedings. The person responsible for the delays in the case resolving; whether it was the victims or the government. In the case, the responsibility for delays in resolving the case cannot be solely attributed to either the victim or the government. The delays in legal proceedings may have resulted from a combination of factors. Some of the issues included procedural complexities, legal arguments, evidentiary issues and the actions of both parties involved in the case.

6 How the case has demonstrated the general public’s lack of understanding of the difference between compliance of victim’s rights v. enforcement of the rights The Adnan Syed case has highlighted the general public's lack of understanding regarding the difference between compliance with victims' rights and the enforcement of those rights. Compliance with victims' rights refers to the adherence to legal statutes and constitutional provisions that outline the rights and protections afforded to victims of crime (Bazelon & Green, 2019). In the case of Adnan Syed, Maryland law and constitutional provisions guarantee certain rights to victims, including the right to be treated with dignity, respect, and sensitivity throughout the criminal justice process (Article 47 of the Maryland Constitution). On the other side, enforcement of victims' rights involves ensuring that victims are able to exercise and enforce their rights effectively within the criminal justice system. In the case, questions have arisen regarding whether the victim, Hae Min Lee, was afforded all of her rights under Maryland law and whether those rights were effectively enforced. For example, concerns have been raised about whether the prosecutor complied with Article 47 of the Maryland Constitution, which requires that victims of crime be treated with dignity, respect, and sensitivity during all phases of the criminal justice process. However, the distinction between compliance with victims' rights and enforcement of those rights may not always be clear to the general public.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7 References Bazelon, L., & Green, B. A. (2019). Victims' Rights from a Restorative Perspective. Ohio St. J. Crim. L. , 17 , 293. Kaplan, J., Weisberg, R., & Binder, G. (2021). Criminal law: Cases and materials . Aspen Publishing. Tobia, K. P. (2018). How people judge what is reasonable. Ala. L. Rev. , 70 , 293. Walklate, S., Maher, J., McCulloch, J., Fitz-Gibbon, K., & Beavis, K. (2019). Victim stories and victim policy: Is there a case for a narrative victimology?. Crime, media, culture , 15 (2), 199-215.

answer_1

Related Documents