Monday, August 24, 2015
Today, Justin Brown filed a Supplement to Motion to Re-Open Post-Conviction Proceedings on behalf of Adnan Syed. The Supplement asks the court to consider evidence such as the AT&T Cover Sheet to show that, inter alia, (1) the cell tower pinged by incoming calls was not reliable to determine the location of Adnan's cell phone; and (2) the 5:14 P.M. "call" on Adnan's call log was a missed call that went to voicemail and not Adnan checking his voicemail. Brown is asking that this evidence be considered "in the interests of justice," which is the standard under Section 7-104 of the Maryland Code of Criminal Procedure.
This is a pretty nebulous standard, so the judge has a great deal of discretion in considering the issue. That said, I think one argument by Brown is especially compelling. According to the Supplement (pages 8-9):
In other words, the State didn't claim at trial or during the PCR hearing that the incoming 3:15 P.M. call could have been the "Best Buy call." Instead, it made this argument for the first time in its Brief of Appellee to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland to try to show that it could have created a timeline that could have worked even if the Asia alibi had been presented.
Given that this new argument now needs to be addressed by the Maryland courts, they need all relevant information about that call, including whether the cell tower it pinged was important. Therefore, I think that the court should allow the Supplement.