This is truly one of the most painfully stupid legal decisions I’ve ever read (and I’ve read plenty). At the trial court level the alibi witness was found credible, which the Court of Appeals had to accept. Thus, their decision is that a credible alibi witness who can place Syed elsewhere at the time of the crime (or so close to it as to render the crime virtually impossible) wouldn’t have impacted the outcome. What stronger defense evidence exists than credible testimony that the defendant was elsewhere at the time of the crime? Particularly where, as here, there is no witness to the crime and no forensic evidence. Just a witness who testified he was with Syed after the crime and whose story the state admitted was inconsistent. Reasonable doubt can be created (and often is) from FAR less than a credible witness who can place your client elsewhere at the time of the crime.
The justices rendering this decision know that. They must. Which leads inexorably to the question of what the real reason for this decision might be. This is corruption pure and simple. The justices are absolutely trying to avoid the public embarrassment of admitting this high profile conviction was based on the coerced testimony of an admitted liar and cell phone tower evidence they know damn well isn’t scientifically valid. No practicing attorney can realistically believe that a credible alibi witness wouldn’t be likely to change the outcome of a criminal case. None. Zero. It defies belief.
