September 4, 2024
MD Supreme Court Upheld Victims’ Rights in Syed Case
By: Meg Garvin, MA, JD, MSt
Last week, the Maryland Supreme Court issued a long-awaited opinion that asked whether victims’ rights are enforceable – specifically, the victims’ rights to be present, heard, and treated with dignity under the Maryland Constitution.
The decision came nearly a year after the Maryland court heard arguments in the case involving Adnan Syed, who was convicted in 2000 of killing his high school ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee. Syed’s conviction gained widespread attention through the popular podcast “Serial.” At issue at this stage of the case was the role of the victim at a vacatur hearing, which is a hearing about whether to set aside a conviction.
In 2022, the State began investigating the integrity of its prosecution of Syed. Despite its lengthy review, the State gave the victim only six days’ notice that it would no longer stand behind the conviction and it did so by filing a vacatur motion – meaning the state filed a motion to set aside the conviction. The state then gave the victim, who was residing in California, less than one business day notice of when that hearing on the motion in which the conviction could be, and ultimately was in this case, vacated was to be held.
The victim, through counsel, asked that the hearing be continued so that the victim could meaningfully exercise the rights afforded by Maryland’s constitution and statutes, including the rights to be present and heard. The trial court rejected the request. When the victim sought appellate review, NCVLI joined and focused on a narrow issue – what does Maryland’s constitutional right to be treated with dignity mean during vacatur proceedings?
In the 4-3 opinion, the Maryland Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Court decision, agreeing that the victim’s rights were violated. The court noted that “under Maryland law, a victim has a right to be heard at a vacatur hearing. In addition, a victim’s right to be heard at a vacatur hearing contemplates the right to be heard in a meaningful way, which includes the right to be heard on the merits of the parties’ presentations in support of a vacatur motion.”
The court determined that being heard on the merits was required, in part, by the constitutional mandate that victims be treated with dignity and respect. The court noted, “having gone through the process that led to the conviction of the defendant – which sometimes can involve years of stressful proceedings – a victim should not be forced to stand silent concerning what the victim believes to be the flaws in the prosecutor’s evidentiary submission or the legal correctness of a vacatur motion. Such a scenario would not treat the victim with the dignity, respect, and sensitivity that Article 47 requires.”
Further, the court recognized the critical role of victims’ counsel when it held that in order for victims’ rights to be meaningful, victims’ counsel must be able to address the merits of legal issues before the court. In reaching this conclusion the court noted, “[w]hen the victim has a potential legal issue to raise before the court – and especially when the issue is complex – the assistance of the victim’s counsel can be critical in vindicating the victim’s right to be heard meaningfully.”
Equally important to the discussion and holding regarding the victim’s substantive rights, is how the court reached its decision. The court recognized that “[t]raditional harmless error analysis is inapplicable when considering whether a victim was prejudiced by the failure of a trial court to ensure that the victim receives the rights to which the victim is due under applicable law. Rather, a victim must demonstrate that the error prevented the victim from meaningfully exercising their rights under the law.”
The Court remanded the case to the trial court for a new vacatur hearing with an order to comport with the victim’s right to be treated with dignity by providing reasonable notice, the opportunity to be personally present, and be meaningfully heard including by counsel.
With its decision, the Maryland Supreme Court fulfilled its obligation to ensure that the rights written in the law are enforced and by doing so ensured that victims’ rights are not mere platitudes. To have held otherwise, to have prevented victims from meaningfully participating in proceedings that impact their very status as victims, would have been an affront to the most basic notion of dignity.
