"I can tell you that I am very happy I'm not one one of the attorneys arguing the [Syed v. Lee] case," says Steven Klepper, an experienced Appellate Court attorney, based in Baltimore.
He's not alone in describing this case as particularly strange and difficult.
"It is a wild situation we're in," says Susan Simpson, a DC attorney who's got a box of files from the Syed case that she's poured through over the years and in the 'Undisclosed' podcast.
"Like, independent of my personal interest in this case, this is like bizarro land, criminal procedure," she added.
Both Klepper and Simpson believe Adnan Syed is innocent in Hae Min Lee's murder.
But with the case right now, his conviction from 23 years ago stands because Lee's brother, Young Lee, appealed the erasure of that conviction on technical grounds.
Grounds two more lawyers will say are very important.
"That goes back to the issue of sensitivity and dignity and respect," says David Sanford, Young Lee's attorney.
Sanford first heard about the case the day before the vacatur hearing, from his client, who wanted to have the hearing delayed a week so that he could travel from his home in California to the hearing in Baltimore.
"You show someone respect by saying you have a right to be here, you have a right to be seen, you have a right to meaningfully participate," says Sanford. "None of that happened here."
The judge denied the motion and went ahead with the hearing, vacating Syed's conviction.
It comes down to a matter of victims rights, argues Sanford and Kurt Wolfgang, the executive director of the Maryland Crime Victims Resource Center.
Wolfgang and his organization helped get a constitutional amendment passed in 1994 to protect victims rights, the very constitutional amendment that's at issue in this case.
Art. 47. (a) 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.
(b) In a case originating by indictment or information filed in a circuit court, a victim of crime shall have the right to be informed of the rights established in this Article and, upon request and if practicable, to be notified of, to attend, and to be heard at a criminal justice proceeding, as these rights are implemented and the terms "crime", "criminal justice proceeding", and "victim" are specified by law.
(c) Nothing in this Article permits any civil cause of action for monetary damages for violation of any of its provisions or authorizes a victim of crime to take any action to stay a criminal justice proceeding (added by Chapter 102, Acts of 1994, ratified Nov. 8, 1994).
"Are they just rights on paper?" he asks. "Or are they going to be given substance and meaning by the Courts? Do they recognize that they are dealing with flesh and blood people here?"
While the Appellate Court reinstated Syed's conviction in March, agreeing that Lee's right had been violated, their opinion did disagree with part of Lee's argument.
"A victim does not have a statutory right to be heard at a vacatur hearing."
-Appellate Court Opinion, March 2023
Whether or not victims have a right to participate meaningfully at a hearing by speaking, even presenting evidence or cross-examining witnesses, is now the subject of an intense debate in legal circles.
If the court decides victims only have the right to be seen, and not to be heard, Wolfgang says, "It's going to set a bad precedent, that we are going to have to try to overcome legislatively."
"There's no history of victims having the ability to do that," argues Klepper.
"It undermines the idea of impartial justice," says Simpson, "You have families with intense emotional stakes involved who are operating as sort of a third party in the system, and that's just not how things are designed to work."
Wolfgang says this is case is unique, because the defense and the prosecution are actually on the same side. They both agree Syed's trial was unfair and his conviction should be overturned. So, who's advocating for Young Lee? His attorney argues, Lee should be able to advocatge for himself if the state isn't doing it for him.
Klepper argues, no matter what happens in this case, a suggestion should be put forth by the court to the Court's rules committee to change the rules so that there's no more uncertainty.
There are a few way this case could play out:
- The Supreme Court could overturn the Appellate Court's ruling, ruling that Lee's rights were not violated at all, leaving Syed free and the charges dropped.
- The Supreme Court could overturn the Appellate Court's ruling and say that Lee's rights were violated, but that it's harmless error, potentially highlighting the issue for the Legislature to look into, or instruct the Court's rules committee to address the issue with new rules to avoid future violations.
- The Supreme Court could overturn the Appellate Court's ruling and say that Lee's appeal was moot when he brought the appeal after the charges were dropped, in which case the Court could also refer the issue to the rules committee.
- The Supreme Court could affirm the Appellate Court's ruling entirely, which would require a new vacatur hearing to be held with enough notice for Lee to attend in person, but not have the right to speak.
- The Supreme Court could affirm the Appellate Court's ruling and agree with Lee further that victims and victim representatives have a right to more meaningfully participate in vacatur hearings and/or other criminal proceedings.