Saturday, April 29, 2017
In yesterday's Reply Brief and Appendix of Cross-Appellee in the Adnan Syed case, the State argued as follows:
Now, I suppose that maybe the State was saying that Judge Welch didn't really apply the presumption despite saying that he was applying it. But, if that's the case, why did the State then note that the defense failed to address this presumption, which clearly implies that they had reason to correct an apparent omission by Judge Welch. But the defense is claiming that Judge Welch reached the correct conclusion. So, why would they have reason to mention the presumption, if Judge Welch already found that it applied but was rebutted?