Adnan Syed's reduced prison sentence to be considered by Baltimore judge
Adnan Syed, whose murder case was chronicled in the 2014 "Serial" podcast, will return to court for a hearing on Wednesday as a judge considers whether to reduce his sentence under the Juvenile Restoration Act.
Syed, now 43, served more than 20 years in prison before his murder conviction in 1999 death of his ex-girlfriend and Woodlawn High classmate Hae Min Lee was vacated in September 2022.
His conviction was reinstated and then upheld by Maryland's Supreme Court in August 2024, citing inadequate notice given to Lee's family about the vacatur hearing.
In December 2024, Syed's lawyers submitted a motion requesting a judge to lessen his sentence under the Juvenile Restoration Act, a Maryland law that permits individuals who have served at least 20 years in prison for crimes committed as minors to seek a sentence modification. Syed was 17 at the time of Lee's murder.
"We await the decision of the judge in tomorrow's hearing on our motion to reduce Adnan's sentence under the Juvenile Restoration Act," said Erica Suter, Syed's attorney. "Given his accomplishments in prison and his work in the community since release, Adnan is a model candidate for a sentence reduction. Tomorrow, we will focus our efforts on ensuring that his freedom is not taken away from him again. After spending 23 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, Adnan is not bitter. He is rebuilding a life for himself and his family, while continuing to profess his innocence."
Baltimore State's Attorney Ivan Bates said in a statement that he supports efforts to be resentenced under new juvenile justice guidelines.
"I recognize the complexity and sensitivity of this case. I hope this comprehensive review and my ultimate decision bring closure to all parties involved," Bates said.
According to The Baltimore Banner, if Judge Jennifer B. Schiffer approves of the motion, Syed will not have to return to prison, however, his convictions for first-degree murder, robbery, kidnapping and false imprisonment will remain.
Withdrawing motion to vacate conviction
On Tuesday, Baltimore State's Attorney Ivan Bates said his office is withdrawing the motion to vacate Adnan Syed's murder conviction.
"Three times, the courts have vacated Adnan Syed's conviction; three times he saw his freedom taken away for a crime he didn't commit," Suter said. "Tonight, the state's attorney got it wrong. His decision to withdraw his office's motion to vacate Adnan's conviction ignores the injustices on which this conviction was founded. We will continue to fight to clear his name through all legal avenues available to him."
Bates said former City State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby's decision to vacate Syed's conviction was based on "false and misleading statements that undermine the integrity of the judicial process."
"As prosecutors, our duty is to seek justice and ensure that all legal proceedings are conducted transparently, accurately, and fairly," Bates said in a statement.
The back story
Hae Min Lee, an 18-year-old high school student, went missing in January 1999. Her body was found weeks later in Baltimore City's Leakin Park.
In 2000, Syed was convicted of Lee's murder. More than 20 years later, in 2022, he was released from prison after a judge vacated his conviction.
The courts then reinstated Syed's conviction after Lee's family argued they weren't given enough notice to attend the vacatur hearing.
Syed's case gained national attention when it was featured in the first season of the true-crime podcast, "Serial," in 2014.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Coders are saving the Second Amendment: DIY guns and digital resistance
America has always defended itself and its freedoms with a gun in hand. But as technology evolves, code is starting to take its place. A new generation of Second Amendment supporters no longer visits shooting ranges or joins the NRA — instead, it circulates blueprints for 3D-printed weapons. Its members' mission is to protect their homes and their right to bear arms, no matter how the government feels about it. While Americans argue about bans, laws, and protests, an entire ecosystem of do-it-yourself gun culture has grown right under their noses. It's nothing like the old movies, where weapons were built from pipes and nails. Ghost guns — firearms without serial numbers or registration — are often made with parts printed on 3D printers and bought online. U.S. law allows individuals to make firearms for personal use, as long as they don't sell them. According to the ATF, this is legal in many cases. This culture has gone far beyond garages. Blueprints and guides are now spread through Tor, Telegram, and GitHub – anonymously and in ways that are nearly impossible to erase. The first famous design, 'The Liberator,' was posted back in 2013. To this day, anonymous communities keep sharing new versions. These self-styled digital patriots view the right to bear arms as a core freedom. Critics argue they undermine control, because weapons without serial numbers can't be traced. Laws can limit sales, but not ideas. While politicians try to close down stores, millions are downloading code. The Second Amendment has been digitized — it now lives in browsers. When the Supreme Court recently allowed new regulations on so-called 'ghost guns,' as detailed in this ruling, it only proved the paradox: Governments can chase physical parts, but the digital heartbeat of the Second Amendment grows stronger. For every law targeting the sale of hardware, a thousand computer files escape into the wild — untraceable, unstoppable, multiplying in the encrypted corners of the internet, where freedom now lives. Maybe we have reached the point where weapons are no longer just objects. They cannot be eradicated through any amount of banning, seizing, or burning so long as they can be downloaded. Yes, it's scary, but freedom isn't about comfort. It is about risk, discomfort, and chaos — and living with that to keep the right to defend yourself. I don't support putting guns in the hands of criminals. I also don't believe the answer is total control, or that such a thing is even possible. Today, the state is trying to catch up with the internet. But the internet will never stop. As Wired explains, this movement is spreading faster than any law can catch up. And maybe the real question isn't whether to ban weapons — it's how to live in a world where a weapon is now knowledge. This is Prometheus's curse for the digital age: We have stolen the fire of creation, and now we must live with its light, its heat and its burns. The more the government tries to play god by banning and seizing, the deeper into the cave the forge of innovation moves, hammering out new blueprints where Zeus's lightning cannot reach. Maybe this is the new era of the Second Amendment — and its files can't be taken away from Americans. Artem Kolisnichenko writes on crime, immigration, and border policy across the American South and Southwest. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Man who murdered uncle and hid body in bank jailed
A drug dealer who kidnapped and murdered his uncle before hiding his body in a bank vault has been jailed for more than 34 years. Asghar Badshah, a 39-year-old bus driver from Bradford, was taken to a disused bank on Commercial Street in Batley by his nephew, Tahir Syed, on 30 November 2019 over a missing sum of money, Leeds Crown Court heard. Mr Badshah was beaten to death and his body was found behind a false wall in a vault four weeks later. Syed, 42, of no fixed address, was found guilty of murder, conspiracy to kidnap and drugs conspiracy offences on Monday and sentenced at the same court earlier. Syed and his associates had imported tonnes of cocaine and heroin to the UK in more than 30 shipments between 2016 to 2021, the court heard. Judge Thomas Bayliss KC said Mr Badshah had been asked to "hide a large amount of cash" by Syed, who then suspected Mr Badshah of stealing £600,000 from him. The court was told how Mr Badshah was kidnapped from his mother's address in Mayo Road, Bradford, in a Mercedes at around 01:35 GMT on the day of the murder and taken to the bank, where he was beaten with a metal rod. Syed lied to his family, the court heard, telling them that his uncle was still alive, knowing that in reality his naked body had been stored in an old vault in the disused bank. Judge Bayliss said: "I am quite sure that your primary purpose, was to detain and interrogate Asghar Badshah, in order to ascertain where the missing money was." Syed was jailed for a minimum term of 34 years and 153 days, taking into account almost four years already spent behind bars since being extradited from Turkey. Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North. West Yorkshire Police
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Rules, Again, That Different Standards for Discrimination Plaintiffs Are Unconstitutional
On Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a teenage girl and her parents who are attempting to sue the girl's school district for alleged disability discrimination. The decision, which did not rule on the merits of the case, is similar to another recent unanimous ruling finding that courts cannot require different discrimination cases to meet different standards of proof to receive a favorable judgment. The case revolves around a teenage girl with a rare form of epilepsy that severely impacts her physical and cognitive abilities. The girl, identified as "A. J. T." in court documents, has so many seizures each morning that she is unable to attend school before noon. According to her family's suit, the girl received additional evening instruction in her first school district. However, when the family moved to Minnesota, the girl's new school district refused to provide similar accommodations. Instead, she ended up only having a 4.25-hour school day, as opposed to the regular 6.5-hour school day other students received. When the district suggested cutting back her instructional time further, the family sued, claiming that the Minnesota school district's refusal to provide A. J. T. with enough instructional time violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. However, two lower courts ruled against the family. The 8th Circuit ruled that simply failing to provide A. J. T. a reasonable accommodation wasn't enough to prove illegal discrimination. Rather, because the family was suing a school, they would be subject to a higher standard than plaintiffs suing other institutions. The family was told they had to prove that the school's behavior rose to the level of "bad faith" or "gross misjudgment." The Supreme Court disagreed. In the Court's opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that disability discrimination "claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts," adding that "Nothing in the text of Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act suggests that such claims should be subject to a distinct, more demanding analysis." In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor reiterated how nonsensical the 8th Circuit's higher standard for educational disability discrimination claims was, noting that some of the most obvious forms of disability discrimination do not involve bad faith or misjudgment against the disabled. "Stairs may prevent a wheelchair-bound person from accessing a public space; the lack of auxiliary aids may prevent a deaf person from accessing medical treatment at a public hospital; and braille-free ballots may preclude a blind person from voting, all without animus on the part of the city planner, the hospital staff, or the ballot designer," she wrote. "The statutes' plain text thus reaches cases involving a failure to accommodate, even where no ill will or animus toward people with disabilities is present." Last week, the Court reached a similar decision, ruling in favor of a straight woman who wanted to sue her employer for sexual orientation–based discrimination but faced a heightened standard of proof because she was a "majority group" plaintiff. In that case, the Court also unanimously ruled that forcing some plaintiffs to clear a higher bar to prove discrimination was unconstitutional and unsupported by federal antidiscrimination law. The post Supreme Court Rules, Again, That Different Standards for Discrimination Plaintiffs Are Unconstitutional appeared first on
