The alleged Brady violations in this case are yet to be proven though.

Both people on the guilty and innocent side, including Rabia, have stated it's those two people.

It is clear who they are. One is the person who found the body and has an alibi, who the defense also focused on during the trial. The lot near the house is a bit deceptive when you see the actual lot and the way the houses are arrayed. It's also not a house the person visited.

The other suspect is Adnan's mentor who with Adnan was heard discussing if investigators could identified when the victim was killed after the body was found. .

They may not have to retry the case. If a new motion to vacate fails, then Adnan Syed remains a convicted murderer.

Agreed, what was presented in Adnan Syed's motion to vacate is not Brady material.

It's not just about one case. It's about fixing systematic issues that were present in the Motion to Vacate Syed's conviction. It affects a lot more than just Adnan Syed. It's the original motion to vacate that has "wasted" tax payer dollars, not what is currently going on.

No. Bates said that he would drop charges against Adnan and reopen the investigation back in 2017, but has since been more moderate and made comments that were tougher on crime. He never said he wouldn't vacate the conviction in the latest election.

It didn't though. There is no evidence the murderer touched the shoes with their hands. The shoes were dress shoes worn all day at school. The DNA on the shoes could have come from anywhere.

That was back in 2017, when running against Thiru Vignarajah. In 2022, he ran to the right of Mosby and expressed being tougher on crime. The story made it seem like it was recent, but it's not. Things change a lot in 6 years.

The outgoing calls were never in question. The incoming calls still have to be in range of the tower referenced.

The DNA evidence never exonerated Adnan. His DNA/prints were already found in the car. If they were found on the shoes too, people would just make the same excuse for that DNA they gave for previous evidence which is Adnan had been in the car before anyway.

This is just vacating the last motion to vacate hearing, which was not conducted properly.

Some key notes in today's judgement:

> We note that, although CP § 8-301.1(f)(2) requires the court to “state the reasons > for” its ruling, the court did not explain its reasons for finding a Brady violation. See State v. Grafton, 255 Md. App. 128, 144 (2022) (Brady violation requires proof that: (1) the prosecutor suppressed or withheld evidence; (2) the evidence was favorable to the accused; and (3) the evidence was material). > > It did not explain how, or if, it found that the evidence was suppressed, despite the lack of affirmative evidence that the information had not been disclosed, and the statement in the motion to vacate that, “[i]f this information was indeed provided to defense,” the failure to utilize it would be ineffective assistance of counsel. > > The court also did not explain how the notes met the Brady materiality standard. Additionally, the court found that the State discovered new evidence that created a substantial likelihood of a different result, but it did not identify what evidence was newly discovered or why it created the possibility of a different result."

Also

> We note, however, that, if there is an in-chambers conference, the judge should put on the record what was discussed in chambers. See Poole v. State, 77 Md. App. 105, 120 (1988) (at the conclusion of a chambers conference, the court should announce on the record, “at a very minimum,” what was agreed to during the discussion), aff’d, 321 Md. 482 (1991).

Source: https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2023/1291s22.pdf

The state's case really didn't fall apart though. The conviction was upheld multiple times.

There is no guarantee the conviction will be vacated this time. Mosby and Feldman are gone. The evidence now has to be presented in court with the statements why the evidence supports the decision.

It didn't happen with the original motion. There was a lot more wrong with it than just the Lees were not given enough notice to attend.

It's also not just that the Lees were not given sufficient notice prior to the hearing, it's that the real hearing already happened prior, with the evidence being shown in secret.