Saturday, May 30, 2015
Five Witnesses Accused Gutierrez of Not Talking to Them At the Adnan Syed Trial
Yesterday, I posted an entry about this statement by the judge at the Adnan Syed trial, in which she notes the accusation that Cristina Gutierrez (Adnan's defense counsel) wouldn't talk to people. An astute reader has now shown me where this accusation occurs in the trial record. It is on pages 51-52 of the transcript from the second day of trial:
This exchange seems important for two reasons: (1) FIVE witnesses are telling the State that Gutierrez and her team have subpoenaed them and yet won't talk to them; and (2) the judge is explaining to Urick what he should do when he is contacted by prospective defense witnesses.
-CM
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2015/05/five-witnesses-accues-gutierrez-of-not-talking-to-them-at-the-adnan-syed-trial.html
Comments
The book about this case just keeps getting longer and longer -- and more incredible on every page.
Posted by: streetwriter | May 30, 2015 5:11:48 AM
RC: Yes, in this exchange, both Urick and the judge acte properly. Gutierrez, on the other hand, did not.
Posted by: Colin Miller | May 30, 2015 5:48:59 AM
She does say on page 47 that she had been out of town and had the flu until 3 days prior to trial and that she hadn't got so much as a call from Ritz or McGillivary - they, along with Jenn seem to be three of the five. So you have Urick saying 5 people have called and Mrs Guiterrez saying no one has called/she was ill. Is this just a matter of who to believe? Or that people were calling and she wasn't there or was ignoring messages?
Posted by: theghostoftomlandery | May 30, 2015 6:05:48 AM
This has less to do with the state's conduct and more to do with supporting Adnan's ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Posted by: Jaaay | May 30, 2015 6:34:12 AM
Gah! I would love to see her billing receipt for this trial! Sick. Out of town. "I don't have that with me right now." I am sure Ulrick wasn't making things easy on her, but when did she actually work on this case!?
Posted by: Jess | May 30, 2015 10:17:06 AM
"She does say on page 47 that she had been out of town and had the flu until 3 days prior to trial and that she hadn't got so much as a call from Ritz or McGillivary - they, along with Jenn seem to be three of the five. So you have Urick saying 5 people have called and Mrs Guiterrez saying no one has called/she was ill."
But how do you reconcile this with Seamus_Duncan's assertions that Guiterrez or her clerk were meeting with Adnan every day and writing up detailed notes for every meeting?
Posted by: Deuces | May 30, 2015 1:45:41 PM
I don't think we have enough information to say that Gutierrez acted improperly. She does not have any obligation to talk to witnesses that she has subpoenaed. This is particularly the case if the witnesses are adverse to her, which appears to be the case based on the fact that they are state witnesses also. There are plenty of things to criticize Gutierrez about in this case but this is a huge stretch in my view
Posted by: James | May 30, 2015 2:40:42 PM
Theghostoftomlandery: Yes, this is a bit of “he said, she said.” Of course, if you believe one and disbelieve the other, it’s favorable for Adnan, but in different ways depending on who isn’t telling the truth.
Jaaay: Agreed.
James: Agreed about the uncertainty. More information would be helpful. I should be able to figure out the identity of the five witnesses soon. After that, I will have a more complete picture. What is clear, though, is that the judge was disturbed by the allegation. Take another look at the judge’s comments:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341bfae553ef01b8d11ebc6d970c-pi
Moreover, if two of these witnesses were the detectives, Gutierrez seems to make pretty clear that any failure to contact them was due to illness and traveling as opposed to trial tactics/strategy.
Posted by: Colin Miller | May 30, 2015 4:29:41 PM
The prosecutor refers to 5 civilian witnesses - does that not discount the police from those five (I realise she could additionally have ignored the police witnesses)?
Posted by: Cupcake | May 31, 2015 2:46:13 AM
Cupcake: Good catch. It looks like Urick is talking about 5 additional witnesses.
Posted by: Colin Miller | May 31, 2015 3:13:47 AM
So, the prosecutor did the right thing and did not try to dissuade the witnesses from talking to the defense. To me it seems to fly against the accusations that the prosecutor was out to get Mr. Syed by any means possible.
Posted by: RC | May 30, 2015 5:11:04 AM