Switch to ADA Accessible Website
Orlando Criminal Lawyer

Criminal Defense Attorneys File Petition for U.S. Supreme Court to Review Adnan Syed’s Case for The Sake of Defendants’ Rights Around the Country


The US Supreme Court was recently petitioned to review the case and of Adnan Syed, the subject of the popular podcast “Serial”.  According to a number of criminal defense attorneys, not only was Syed (the defendant) not provided with proper representation when it came to investigating unbiased credible alibi witnesses, but the recent decision to deny him a new trial and reinstate his conviction will negatively impact criminal defendants – and habeas petitioners – around the country, and uproots well-established, uniform legal precedent. The appeals court ruled that although the initial trial was deficient because Syed’s attorney failed to follow up with alibi witnesses, he would not be granted a new trial because the evidence against him was still strong and he had not been prejudiced.

The Issue of Prejudice & Uniform, Clearly Established Legal Precedent

According to the amicus brief filed, the Maryland Court of Appeals’ decision is the first to hold that the defendant’s attorney’s failure to investigate a credible and unbiased alibi witness is not prejudicial to the defendant. In fact, state and federal courts across the country have found prejudice in these circumstances; even when the government introduced strong evidence that rendered the testimony from the credible alibi arguably weak in the case. In fact, existing case law dictates that the loss of a potential credible alibi witness is so strong that even an extremely strong government case cannot overcome the existence of prejudice, resulting in habeas petitioners prevailing in seeking habeas relief in these circumstances.

As a result, there is no question that the Court of Appeals’ decision calls into question well-established legal precedent, which will have significant impacts on a number of other criminal defendants around the country. Once that a defendant shows that their counsel’s actions fell outside of the “range of professionally competent assistance,” they must simply show that there is a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different,” not that they would not have been convicted. In other words, it is simply a probability “sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Here, the Maryland Court of Appeals already agreed that the defendant attorney’s conduct fell outside the range of professionally competent assistance, which is sufficient.

Contact Our Florida Criminal Defense Attorneys to Protect Against Wrongful Conviction

Being granted a new trial – and especially a review from the US Supreme Court – is extremely difficult:  of the more than 7,000 cases petitioned to the Court each year, it takes up an average of only two percent. The best way to ensure that you are not wrongfully convicted is to work with a demonstrated Orlando criminal attorney from the get-go. Contact The Baez Law Firm today to find out more about our criminal defense services.






  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Miami Office

1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1410
Miami, FL 33131
Office: 305-999-5100
Fax: 305-999-5111

Orlando Office

250 N Orange Ave, Suite 750
Orlando, FL 32801
Office: 407-705-2626
Fax: 407-705-2625

Email Us

Fields Marked * Are required

DISCLAIMER: Completing and submitting this form or otherwise merely contacting The Baez Law Firm or any individual at the firm will not establish an attorney/client relationship. Our firm cannot represent you until we determine that there would be no conflict of interest and that we are otherwise able to accept representation of your case. Please do not send any information or documents until a formal attorney/client relationship has been established through an interview with an attorney and you have been given authorization in the form of an engagement letter with The Baez Law Firm. Any information or documents sent via this form or otherwise prior to your receipt of an engagement letter will not be treated as confidences, secrets, or protected information of any nature. Submitting information regarding your potential case will not bar The Baez Law Firm from representing or continuing to represent a person or entity whose interest are adverse to your in condition with your case.

protected by reCAPTCHA Privacy - Terms
Please review the highlighted fields. They are required.
DISCLAIMER: This website contains information about The Baez Law Firm that includes testimonial statements from persons who are familiar with the firm's services. The testimonials shown are not necessarily representative of every person's experience with us. Testimonials from every client are not provided. As no two situations or persons are identical, the facts and circumstances of your situation may differ from those for which testimonials are shown. This website also includes information about some of the past results that we have obtained for our clients. Not all results are provided, and the results shown are not necessarily representative of all results obtained by us. No two situation are exactly alike; every person's situation is unique and the outcome for each person depends on the individual facts.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.
MileMark Media - Practice Growth Solutions

© 2015 - 2024 Baez Law Firm. All rights reserved.
This law firm website and legal marketing are managed by MileMark Media.

Contact Form Tab Contact Form Tab