Source
r/serialpodcastorigins•
bg1256

Opening Arguments Podcast corrects a mistake

Discuss

In their most recent episode, Andrew clarifies a procedural mistake he made in their previous episode after apparently getting called out by Colin Miller. #DramaAlert

He also points listeners - which seems to include at least a fair amount of Syed supporters - to Greaff’s concurring opinion multiple times. It’s nice to have an actual lawyer who knows the law referencing this concurrence because at least it should shut down the notion that the state was arguing conspiracy theories with respect to Asia and a potentially fraudulent alibi.

Link here

Posted Dec 20, 2019, 6:40 PM UTC

2211
AstariaEriol•

If there's one thing Colin Miller is known for, it's admitting to mistakes and a lack of experience.

8
dualzoneclimatectrl•

This is all true, right?

EvidenceProf: Does Court of Appeals Precedent Imply It's Futile to Reverse Judge Welch's Waiver Ruling?

...

Either (1) Adnan did not waive the cell tower/IAC issue; (2) Adnan did waive the cell tower/IAC issue due to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, meaning that Adnan would still eventually be entitled to relief. So, what would be the point of making Adnan go through his procedural paces, if he has a winning argument, regardless?

2
BlwnDline2•

What in the world is he saying? [Could anyone discern truth from fiction in that pile of words]?

The quoted text is a either (1) a cipher, (2) Pig-Latin/Legalese due to ineffective (assistance of) analysis, meaning that logic and basic legal knowledge (elude the author) but [he] would still eventually be entitled to make an intelligible/coherent point. So, what would be the point of making an intelligible/coherent point if he has a winning argument, regardless?

2
Mike19751234•

I thought the arguments is that a judge would be smart enough to provide the same relief if they thought it would happen for a different reason. So in this case, if two lawyers screw up the same way why wait for the problem to resurface for the second lawyer. So Colin is saying if CG and JB screwed up the same way, why wait for Adnan to go after Brown.

1
BlwnDline2•

The 3 panel members ruled unanimously on the fax and plea issues so there is no "concurrence" or dissent on those (she agreed w/outcome and shared the other 2 judges'reasoning).

Graeff dissented from the Majority's ruling and reasoning on Asia

3
bg1256OP•

Ah thanks.

3
BlwnDline2•

It's easy to be confused; CoSA's ruling is overwrought, redundant, and reads like the judges punted to an author who forgot to take their ADHD meds.

2
dualzoneclimatectrl•

to Greaff’s concurring opinion multiple times

When did Graeff write a concurring opinion? She did write a dissenting opinion.

2
bg1256OP•

Did I get the name wrong? I’m talking about the opinion arguing CG wasn’t deficient.

2
robbchadwick•

Yes, that was a dissenting opinion. Graeff disagreed with the majority — and she didn’t really explore the issue of prejudice — because she believed that Cristina wasn’t deficient according to the first prong of Strickland.

2
Justwonderinif•

Didn't point this out yesterday, because it doesn't really matter.

But Colin didn't point anything out to Torrez until after reading the thread here, if you care about things like time stamps. I mean, Colin could have tweeted to Torrez three days earlier than he did.

Doesn't matter any more. It just takes me back to a time when his blog posts were sometimes cut and pastes of reddit comments both for and against Adnan.

2