“Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty…” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11) is a statement the Judicial system prides themselves on. However, do we really follow this rule? Can every jury be unbiased toward the defendant? Will the courtroom always be prone to human error? Sadly the answer is yes, and Adnan Syed is living proof of our justice system failing. He was convicted of strangling his ex by being overcome with passion and rage. The thing is, when you look at all the evidence supporting the States motive, you find that it does not match. I know Adnan is not guilty for main reasons, but the main one centers around the key witness.
First of all, Jay, who was the main witness at Adnan’s trial, gave statements that were inaccurate and inconsistent. How much can we trust him? He was known for dealing weed and he could not keep his story straight. He talked about how he and Adnan both were driving around together and wanted to smoke weed. In the first trial he says that both of them are high and in the second trial he says that only he was high. Either way, this proves that Jay was intoxicated and therefore anything he says could be a lie. He also changes other key statements such as where he saw the body, if they visited the park, and if he helped bury the body. With so many inconsistencies, how can anyone believe what he says, let alone convict someone on those statements.
Kay's Klub 