Twelve Angry Men: The Case of Adnan Syed 'Adnan Syed. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on "Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned"?Get the original essay On January 13, 1999, Hae Min Lee, a high school student at Woodlawn High School in Baltimore, was strangled to death and buried in a local park. The alleged perpetrator? Her ex-boyfriend Adnan. Despite a case riddled with logical errors and factual inconsistencies, the prosecution still managed to convince the jury that Adnan killed Hae. Were they just twelve angry men looking for an easy solution and quick prosecution? However, they were convinced, I maintain that Adnan Syed was convicted on insufficient evidence, as the prosecution failed to prove motive and relied on questionable testimony from their main witness, and used unreliable cell tower data while omitting key details that contradicted their narrative; proving that the will of a jury can override any defensible position that contradicts it. According to the State, Syed's breakup with Hae threw him into a tantrum because his deviance from Islamic tradition did not bear fruit. This idea is based on the fact that Adnan was forced into a clandestine relationship with Hae due to his family's cultural background. Juror Stella Armstrong, in an interview, reiterated the state's theory that "he had put his whole life on the line for her." Their story completely contradicts Adnan's behavior. He regularly smoked marijuana and after his breakup with Hae, he began seeing several other girls simultaneously. Saad Chaudry, one of Adnan's friends, described him as a "player." Are any of these things indicative of a devout Muslim? The point is that Adnan sacrificing the sanctity of his faith for a girl, then killing her out of frustration, seems to contradict his overall behavior and reaction to the breakup. Adnan's friends and classmates described him as "sad" after the breakup. Not “furious” or “distraught”. The prosecution referred to a note from Adnan in which he allegedly used the words "I'm going to kill" in the context of the breakup. This is a trivial piece of evidence because “kill” is often a colloquial turn of phrase and not an expression of homicidal intent. Him becoming a “player” after breaking up with Hae is not an indication of humiliation or rage. Since he regularly deviated from his family's teachings and was not angered by the breakup, the State's theory seems dubious. It is likely that the members of this jury, notably Owen Williams, harbor arbitrary assumptions about Adnan's personality because of his heritage. According to Williams, "women are second-class citizens in some countries" and "Adnan wanted power but Hae wouldn't give in." This is an unfounded assumption that contradicts Adnan's usual departure from his culture. Because of the narrow motive presented by the prosecution, the basis of Adnan's guilt is specious. The prosecution's theory about Adnan's motive doesn't hold up, nor does the testimony of their star witness Jay Wilds. He was the vital part of the prosecution's case against Adnan since he was their only witness to testify, and he pieced together a story that seemed to incriminate Adnan. However, the jury overlooked the glaring inconsistencies and troubling contradictions throughout Jay's story. He gave two interviews and each time told a different version of his story. Some of the changes made to itsstory were less important, such as Jay being "the criminal element of Woodlawn" rather than being "perceived" as such, or that he was the only one smoking that afternoon. However, some of these changes are more confusing. Between the first and second versions of his story, the murder location changes from a "strip" to a Best Buy parking lot. If someone was shown a human corpse, the trauma would be too great for them to simply forget where they saw it. Jay wasn't telling the truth. Even more confusing: an entire part of their trip (a drive to Patapsco State Park for a quick smoke) simply disappeared after Jay's second interview. It is clear that in the three hours that passed between recounting these two versions, Jay refined the details of his testimony. Besides the inconsistencies between the two versions of his story, it is unlikely that the time and location of the murder occurred at a Best Buy store at 2:36 p.m. To elucidate, put yourself in the free space of a murderer. Would you do it in the middle of the afternoon in a Best Buy parking lot? You would be shaded by the bright mid-afternoon sun and protected by the expanse of a public parking space. As a result, the Best Buy payphone that Adnan allegedly used to call Jay after the murder never existed. In episode nine, Laura Sandoval claims that "there was never a pay phone at Best Buy." You cannot make a call from a public telephone that does not exist. If Adnan couldn't have called, he wouldn't have been able to be at Best Buy. If he couldn't have been at Best Buy, he wouldn't have been able to strangle Hae in the parking lot. The credibility of the star witness's account is rapidly diminishing. To further discredit Jay's story, Hae's friends remember seeing her after school around the time Jay says she was killed, and Jay's story does not allow that Adnan gets dropped off at track practice on time (which Jay claims he did). But why would a jury believe such misleading testimony? Detective Jim Trainum has the answer. His theory is that confirmation bias was pervasive in the trial. According to the detective, the state (and, in this case, the jury) had "a murder case on a silver platter" and could not bear to "ruin an excellent witness." This position is strong since Jay was all the prosecution had against Adnan. If his story was discredited, they would have no way of convicting Adnan. The mystery would have remained complete in the eyes of the jury. As with motive, the jury and prosecution handed down convictions that circumvented a truthful investigation. Since most of the jury members were black (seven out of twelve, as specified in episode eight), there may have been an element of racial bias against Jay, a fellow African American. The prosecution's desperation to convict despite an unreliable witness allowed Adnan Syed's conviction to be based on a lie. Jay's story would not be powerful enough without some form of corroborating scientific or statistical evidence, and even if there was, it was not reliable enough to convict Adnan. The prosecution used cell phone data to corroborate Jay's testimony. Using a recording of incoming calls on Adnan's phone in tandem with cell tower data, they tried to place Adnan in key locations (Best Buy, grave site, etc.). Only, Adnan didn't even have his cell phone that afternoon. It was with Jay, and since he and Adnan testify to it, the prosecution's story seems to fold in on itself. Cell phone records, if they truly reflect cell phone location, count in favor.5.

Essay / Twelve Angry Men: The Case of Adnan Syed 'Adnan Syed. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on "Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned"?Get the original essay On January 13, 1999, Hae Min Lee, a high school student at Woodlawn High School in Baltimore, was strangled to death and buried in a local park. The alleged perpetrator? Her ex-boyfriend Adnan. Despite a case riddled with logical errors and factual inconsistencies, the prosecution still managed to convince the jury that Adnan killed Hae. Were they just twelve angry men looking for an easy solution and quick prosecution? However, they were convinced, I maintain that Adnan Syed was convicted on insufficient evidence, as the prosecution failed to prove motive and relied on questionable testimony from their main witness, and used unreliable cell tower data while omitting key details that contradicted their narrative; proving that the will of a jury can override any defensible position that contradicts it. According to the State, Syed's breakup with Hae threw him into a tantrum because his deviance from Islamic tradition did not bear fruit. This idea is based on the fact that Adnan was forced into a clandestine relationship with Hae due to his family's cultural background. Juror Stella Armstrong, in an interview, reiterated the state's theory that "he had put his whole life on the line for her." Their story completely contradicts Adnan's behavior. He regularly smoked marijuana and after his breakup with Hae, he began seeing several other girls simultaneously. Saad Chaudry, one of Adnan's friends, described him as a "player." Are any of these things indicative of a devout Muslim? The point is that Adnan sacrificing the sanctity of his faith for a girl, then killing her out of frustration, seems to contradict his overall behavior and reaction to the breakup. Adnan's friends and classmates described him as "sad" after the breakup. Not “furious” or “distraught”. The prosecution referred to a note from Adnan in which he allegedly used the words "I'm going to kill" in the context of the breakup. This is a trivial piece of evidence because “kill” is often a colloquial turn of phrase and not an expression of homicidal intent. Him becoming a “player” after breaking up with Hae is not an indication of humiliation or rage. Since he regularly deviated from his family's teachings and was not angered by the breakup, the State's theory seems dubious. It is likely that the members of this jury, notably Owen Williams, harbor arbitrary assumptions about Adnan's personality because of his heritage. According to Williams, "women are second-class citizens in some countries" and "Adnan wanted power but Hae wouldn't give in." This is an unfounded assumption that contradicts Adnan's usual departure from his culture. Because of the narrow motive presented by the prosecution, the basis of Adnan's guilt is specious. The prosecution's theory about Adnan's motive doesn't hold up, nor does the testimony of their star witness Jay Wilds. He was the vital part of the prosecution's case against Adnan since he was their only witness to testify, and he pieced together a story that seemed to incriminate Adnan. However, the jury overlooked the glaring inconsistencies and troubling contradictions throughout Jay's story. He gave two interviews and each time told a different version of his story. Some of the changes made to itsstory were less important, such as Jay being "the criminal element of Woodlawn" rather than being "perceived" as such, or that he was the only one smoking that afternoon. However, some of these changes are more confusing. Between the first and second versions of his story, the murder location changes from a "strip" to a Best Buy parking lot. If someone was shown a human corpse, the trauma would be too great for them to simply forget where they saw it. Jay wasn't telling the truth. Even more confusing: an entire part of their trip (a drive to Patapsco State Park for a quick smoke) simply disappeared after Jay's second interview. It is clear that in the three hours that passed between recounting these two versions, Jay refined the details of his testimony. Besides the inconsistencies between the two versions of his story, it is unlikely that the time and location of the murder occurred at a Best Buy store at 2:36 p.m. To elucidate, put yourself in the free space of a murderer. Would you do it in the middle of the afternoon in a Best Buy parking lot? You would be shaded by the bright mid-afternoon sun and protected by the expanse of a public parking space. As a result, the Best Buy payphone that Adnan allegedly used to call Jay after the murder never existed. In episode nine, Laura Sandoval claims that "there was never a pay phone at Best Buy." You cannot make a call from a public telephone that does not exist. If Adnan couldn't have called, he wouldn't have been able to be at Best Buy. If he couldn't have been at Best Buy, he wouldn't have been able to strangle Hae in the parking lot. The credibility of the star witness's account is rapidly diminishing. To further discredit Jay's story, Hae's friends remember seeing her after school around the time Jay says she was killed, and Jay's story does not allow that Adnan gets dropped off at track practice on time (which Jay claims he did). But why would a jury believe such misleading testimony? Detective Jim Trainum has the answer. His theory is that confirmation bias was pervasive in the trial. According to the detective, the state (and, in this case, the jury) had "a murder case on a silver platter" and could not bear to "ruin an excellent witness." This position is strong since Jay was all the prosecution had against Adnan. If his story was discredited, they would have no way of convicting Adnan. The mystery would have remained complete in the eyes of the jury. As with motive, the jury and prosecution handed down convictions that circumvented a truthful investigation. Since most of the jury members were black (seven out of twelve, as specified in episode eight), there may have been an element of racial bias against Jay, a fellow African American. The prosecution's desperation to convict despite an unreliable witness allowed Adnan Syed's conviction to be based on a lie. Jay's story would not be powerful enough without some form of corroborating scientific or statistical evidence, and even if there was, it was not reliable enough to convict Adnan. The prosecution used cell phone data to corroborate Jay's testimony. Using a recording of incoming calls on Adnan's phone in tandem with cell tower data, they tried to place Adnan in key locations (Best Buy, grave site, etc.). Only, Adnan didn't even have his cell phone that afternoon. It was with Jay, and since he and Adnan testify to it, the prosecution's story seems to fold in on itself. Cell phone records, if they truly reflect cell phone location, count in favor.5.

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch