Quantcast

Adnan Syed prosecutor speaks out

A letter from Kevin Urick

Fourteen years ago we obtained a constitutionally valid conviction by jury of Adnan Syed. What is transpiring now is an example of defense tactics at their worst. The law allows a convicted felon a nearly never ending ability to continually attack the results we obtained. And the immunity provided to filings during litigation allows one to file accusations with impunity thus obtaining wide publicity for the accusation while knowing you cannot be held accountable for them and that the subject of the accusations basically has no way to respond.

Asia McClain was an alleged witness the defense knew about 14 years ago. Neither she nor the defense ever brought her to the State’s attention. After investigating Ms. McClain’s potential as a witness, Defense Attorney Gutierrez made a reasoned decision not to call her at trial.

The Defense filed a post conviction proceeding in 2010, and in preparation for that determined that Ms. McClain was a witness whose not being called at trial they could use to argue Ms. Gutierrez made a mistake. The defense contacted Ms. McClain and in response she contacted me.

I testified accurately about that conversation during the post conviction proceeding at a hearing in 2012. In January 2014 the relief asked for in the post conviction was denied.

Despite having been in contact with Ms. McClain, and knowing full well where she was and how to contact her, and despite hearing my testimony about our conversation, the defense never issued a subpoena for Ms. McClain either in their case in chief nor in rebuttal to my testimony.

Interestingly, about two or three weeks after an interview I gave appeared online, the defense filed the supplemental filing with great publicity, even issuing a press release to announce it. Was it in retaliation for my contradicting the slant the defense had been presenting to the public? Remember, they have immunity from civil suit.

In the “affidavit” Ms. McClain mentions her fear of the Syed defense team and supporters as well as outlining some of the contacts those persons had with her prior to her allowing the affidavit. I would ask that experienced attorneys review that affidavit for its credibility as well as its legal validity given that despite the fact the witness was known and available to the defense they never subpoenaed her.

And to my fellow prosecutors, I would say, we need to recognize that when court pleadings are used to publicly disseminate baseless attacks against one of us, should that smear campaign succeed, we all will be subject to like attack tomorrow.

— Kevin Urick 

 

43 comments

  1. Mr. Urick, in reviewing the second Asia affidavit, did you notice that while she clearly seeks to impugn your character, she never directly contradicts your testimony? For example, you testified that she told you she wrote the first affidavit under pressure from the family. Asia now says she didn’t write it under pressure, but she does not deny telling you that she wrote it under pressure. What do you make of this?

  2. It seems to me that Urick is trying to out run his incompetence. This filing was not in retaliation of anything but finally being able to expose your and the polices underhanded tactics. Run for the hills. Continue to not allow competent journalists to interview you and continue to write pieces that you don’t have to answer to. I feel sorry for the rest of the people you may have railroaded

  3. I find it curious that a prosecutor complains about defense lawyers’ ability to make factual claims without fear of civil liability. As though prosecutors have any fear of civil liability when they wrongfully accuse or convict someone.

  4. “After investigating Ms. McClain’s potential as a witness, Defense Attorney Gutierrez made a reasoned decision not to call her at trial.”

    Hm. How does he know all of this? Is it documented? A best guess? Or what he would like to think happened, or perhaps what is most convenient, for him, to have happened?

    “After investigating…” How do you know that this witness was investigated? At all? She has always been clear that she was never contacted. There are no notes to suggest that she was investigated.

    “Attorney Gutierrez made a reasoned decision…” Once again, how do we know that any decision, of any description, was made? Even if the defence council did make a clear decision, and let’s say that she told everyone that she had made this decision, how do we know it was “reasoned”.

    It could have been a reasoned decision, but I really don’t think that we can be so certain.

  5. If you think there is ever a chance he was wrongly convicted (not enough incriminating evidence) you should accept that he gets a chance to prove so.
    What IF the DNA comes back and finds his innocence? Your letter/article/advertisement stinks of childishness and you can’t honestly believe everyone you’ve convicted was completely and utterly without a doubt guilty, as charged.
    Shame on you. Relax and lets see what evidence that you didn’t test back then points out.

  6. I usually wouldn’t usually dirty my fingernails typing out my muddle-headed thinking for the benefit of nobody in particular on the internet. However, reading this sanctimonious self-justification from you Kevin Urick has left me almost physically vomiting my incredulity. The Adnan Syed case was brought into the public domain because it transcends a local tragedy and throws a spotlight on a veritable and disturbing cacophony of woeful inadequacy within the US criminal justice system in particular, and trial by jury in general. Amongst other items too long list, the story touches on manipulation of an under-informed jury, selective and misrepresented witness testimony and expert evidence, an underwhelming case hinging on the questionable testimony of an unreliable witness, and failures on all sides of a courtroom where “winning” appears to be prized over and above the truth, or even basic facts. Wake up, Urick. The reason the Syed story was chosen as the focus of the Serial podcast in the first place is entirely because the case YOU brought to trial is so deeply flawed and questionable in substance. Those are also the reasons why the podcast built momentum to attract 21 million listeners from across the world, and also why the esteemed Innocence project are now taking a fulsome interest in the case. Finally, you can hide behind technical jargon to make your objections, but the fact is that fundamental flaws in the case do appear to have now been recognised at last by the Maryland court system, with last week’s decision to grant an appeal nothing short a small triumph of common sense. In today’s email, you seem to be arguing that justice was served on the basis of the original conviction, as if the current system is the very embodiment of infallibility that should never be challenged. That’s a gross distortion of the interpretation of the meaning of justice, and it alarms me to my marrow that you appear to be using it as way of trying to preserve you own position. The Serial podcast, and subsequent global media coverage of the Syed case, have exposed the frailties and failings on a system of which you have been a player. There’s quite rightly a ground swell of feeling that justice wasn’t served in the Syed case, with its an uncomfortable shadow that what happened to this boy could happen to anyone of us. It might be that for you and your prosecutor brethren this is a case is like a million others, and its just unlucky for you that public attention has happened to fallen on this with such a critical eye: however, public’s coruscating eye HAS fallen on your case, and has deemed it to fall short of what we expect from justice. As lawyers you have a choice: to whinge that’s it’s unfair to be challenged by uppity journalists and try and block future such coverage of cases which incidentally aren’t just of interest to the public but are IN the public interest. Or , and here’s a revolutionary idea, you can look at the weaknesses and inadequacies in system you’re part and parcel of, and try and make sure that in future that, if you don’t want the indignity of trial by the Twitterati, the cases you bring stand up to fundamental principles of what’s equitable and fair. Finally, the suggestion that you’ve been smeared here is a bit rich given that you seem happy enough to court the media when you think it’s going to work to your advantage, as with that sphincter-crushing embarrassment that appeared in the Intercept last month. You haven’t been smeared Mr Urick, and you insult the wider public by making that claim. What’s actually happened here is that you been caught bang to rights making a bit of hash while serving as a public prosecutor, and for that I think you should apologise. Thanks

  7. Mr Urick, using emotive words and phrases such as “constitutionally valid conviction”, “defense tactics” and “convicted felon” and the going on to talk at length about Asia McClain, does not get away from the fact that there are inconsistencies in this case which, if looked at without predjudice, provide obvious, ‘reasonable doubt’.
    I’m not a journalist, lawyer, religious, political, an American or even living in the USA, I’m a born and bred, female, Londoner. Living and working in London. I have looked at this case objectively and I suggest you should too.

  8. Mr Urick,

    With all the heat you have been receiving lately, I would just like to just say – Thank You. I am happy to know that Hae Lee’s true killer is behind bars today and that we have one less killer on the streets today. THANK YOU.

  9. Don’t be that guy Mr. Urick. Don’t boast about a “constitutionally valid conviction” and then cry about someone who uses his constitutional right to access evidence. The defendant is playing by the same rules that you convicted him with, but now you want to say that it’s unfair. I particularly like how you request “that experienced attorneys review that affidavit for its credibility as well as its legal validity” when it affects you, but you don’t require the same scrutiny for statements by your key witness when it affects the accused. Mr. Urick’s judgment is poor as is evidenced by his getting an attorney for his key witness who he just charged as an accessory. When you have a prosecutor with poor judgment, appeals are inevitable.

  10. oh urick, stop talking, there’s nothing you can say to justify your poor handling of this case. i only hope, this door opens so you can be exposed for what you are. i wonder how many of other cases we could find out about if you are actually investigated for prosecutorial misconduct. have some decency!

  11. Odd letter – confused and not to the point. Syed’s argument is that Attorney Gutierrez didn’t make reasonable decisions on his behalf, such as ignoring an alibi witness. As an officer of the court (if he still is) and a US citizen, Urick should feel proud that the system provides defendants with remedies for errors committed during trial. Is winning a conviction so important that it should come at any cost?

  12. I’ve read Urick’s interview and the above and I simply can’t believe a word he says. What gets me about some prosecutors is that they associate “good lawyering” with the number of convictions they can obtain. What about professionalism, ethics, due process, and courtesy to your opposing attorney? Adnan Syed’s lawyer is fighting tooth and nail for his client. This is NOT a frivolous appeal. I only hope you will see how far “good lawyering” has gotten you if Syed is proven innocent after having spent 15 years in prison.

  13. Dear Mr. Urick,

    Just a few things to say on your post:

    1. “Neither she [Gutierrez] nor the defense ever brought her to the State’s attention” – That should be mainly WHY the post conviction relief appeal was put into motion.
    2. “Gutierrez made a reasoned decision not to call her at trial” You DONT know that and can’t back it up. Gutierrez’s notes ONLY acknowledges Asia McClain’s existence as a potential witness but was not further pursued or investigated from both Ms. McClain’s claims as well as Guterrez’s notes.
    3. “I testified accurately about that conversation [referring to conversation with Ms. McClain]” Ms. McClain is claiming to not have written the initial affidavit under pressure or recant it, which flat out goes against what you testified ‘accurately’. Here is a quote from her second affidavit: “I never told Urick that I recanted my story or affidavit about January 13, 1999. In, addition I did not write the March 1999 letters or the affidavit because of pressure from Syed’s family. I did not write them to please Syed’s family or to get them off my back”
    4. ‘In the affidavit Ms. McClain mentions her fear of the Syed defense team and supporters….” I have read the FIRST and SECOND affidavit and nowhere does it mention any fear of the defense team other than just being “caught offguard”. However it does mention this and I am QUOTING this part of the affidavit WORD FOR WORD: ” Urick discussed the evidence of the case in a manner that seemed designed to get me to think Syed was guilty and that I should not bother participating in the case, by telling what I knew about January 13, 1999. Urick convinced me into believing that I should not participate in any ongoing proceedings.”
    5. “…despite the fact the witness was known and available to the defense they never subpoenaed her” – I don’t have the information to refute this however it further suggests an appeal should be made. ALL THE MORE reason to file the post conviction relief appeal.

    Lastly I just want to add that you mention an appeal would “attack the results we [you and your team] obtained” however your only main results were Jay’s testimony and the cell records which you claim to have corroborated his story. The cell records only partially corroborate ONE of Jay’s testimonies (His story and timings changed significantly in different testimonies). In fact the LATEST story of Jay in his interview with The Intercept does NOT corroborate the cell records AT ALL putting the time of burial closer to or post midnight [cell records pinged the tower closest to Leakin Park at 7:09 and 7:16pm]. Given that you had limited witnesses and evidence, you did have the rope and bottle found closest to Hae’s burial site to investigate. However there is NO evidence of DNA testing ever made. Testing was made of an atlas where Adnan’s palm prints were found on the BACK of the book cover even though it was alleged it was on the map showing Leakin Park [even though that map was much broader than just showing Leakin Park]. Either way very insignificant testing.

    I do acknowledge legally a testimony corroborated with cell records might validate a conviction. However the testimony kept changing significantly every time it was made, with only one of them somewhat corroborating the cell records; not to mention it was also made by someone with a criminal record and who admitted to being against the law and having a reputation of doing so [Jay said so himself in court]. Regardless of how irrelevant the criminal involvement could be, it should account, as well as the inconsistent testimonies, for lack of credibility specially since this was the sole witness bringing Adnan into this murder.

    I’m not saying Adnan Syed is innocent. But I am saying he was convicted with lack of evidence and credible testimony as well as lack of corroboration. He was also deemed to not have had an Alibi when he did have a solid one {Ms. McClain} whereas Jay’s alibi [Jenn] is very inconsistent and lacks credibility and ALSO does not corroborate cell records [Call records show Jay supposedly called Jenn’s landline when she claimed they were both at her house].

    I support this motion of post conviction relief and I also believe Adnan Syed should be retried fairly this time and be convicted or exonerated with valid evidence rather than incompetent ‘corroborated’ testimonies.

    – Syed

  14. This is the same prosecutor that procured a private defense attorney for one of the defendants in the case.

  15. What a tool! I have no words.

  16. This is the same Kevin Urick who refused to speak to Serial’s Sarah K. (claiming she never contacted him) but then spoke to the Intercept giving a first interview, but waited until Susan Simpson (viewfromll2) did her piece on him before doing the second Intercept interview. In his second Intercept interview he tries to make sound that his use of Cell phone data is somehow different that how cellphones ping towers today (not so, review Susan’s blog).

    I feel that with each passing day Urick is becoming a wreck as his shoddy and dishonest work falls apart in the public’s eye and judicial circles – this is a desperate man. He who refused to do interviews is now crafting letters of defence in the hope of mesmerising others like he did the jurors at the trial.

    The truth is as old as the hills (Ghandi) and what goes around, comes around(me).

  17. A “constitutionally valid” conviction does not mean a rightful conviction or even an ethical conviction. It means you won. But since Serial and the media spotlight has (unfortunately for you) shone on this case, we’ve learned a few things:

    1. Jay is a lying liar, and was coached by police. Hours of unrecorded interview time? Of course this will be scrutinized.
    2. Jay’s story changed with regards to timeline when police had mistaken one of the cell tower pings. Once they corrected the mistake Jay’s story changed yet again.
    3. The cell tower data being collected under less than precise means. Waranowitz doesn’t write down his findings and just “tells you?” WTH?
    4. Incomplete investigation of Jenn and Jay. No one checked their homes for evidence of a dead body face down?
    5. Frontal lividity. Finally this. Hae’s body showed evidence of frontal lividity, not mixed lividity. Likely she was never on her side in the trunk of a car but rather face down somewhere. Autopsy data does not correlate with Jay’s story.
    6. Asia McClain puts Adnan in the library (adjacent to the school) at the state’s proposed time of death. Additionally witnesses put HAE on campus at the supposed time of death.

    If you did nothing wrong, Kevin Urick, let the appeals court dissect the hell out of this case and determine that themselves. You may have to explain Jay’s attorney, however. Just be prepared for that.

  18. What that guy said ^ nailed it.

  19. Hopefully Mr. Urick will be prosecuted himself after all is said and done. How can you argue with all the information presented. IT IS OBVIOUS. Do the right thing. You smear you’re post as a beacon of justice.

    As a society we should not give someone like Mr. Urick the power he has. It is our duty to have him removed from his post AFTER he makes things right. There is much more to this case than this article tries to defend.

  20. Urick gobbles cawk…

  21. Whether or not Adnan is guilty (we sadly may never known, because of the treachery and dishonesty of the prosecution) what we do know for sure, is that you, Mr Ulrick, are a despicable person.

    It was you who made Anisha testify, and silenced her words, to prevent the truth of her statements, that she never talked to Adnan on the day in question, but clearly the conversation she relayed happened much later, after Jay worked at the porn store. You knew this, and yet you tried to cover up this truth. You tried to hide and distort many facts. You prevented her from speaking this truth on the stand.

    Why were you angry at Don for telling the truth about Adnan, for saying he liked him? Why did you lie about the timeline? Why did you provide counsel for Jay? Why didn’t you do the forensics testing? Why did you allow Jay to knowingly lie in court?

    Who knows how many other facts you distorted, or what evidence you corrupted? Nothing about what you did is trustworthy, because you clearly are an immoral individual. Your jobs was to lay out the facts, and let the truth speak for itself. Instead you decided your job was to convict regardless of the evidence.

    You weren’t truthful then, and you are petty and childish now. You can’t save your reputation now. What you did was wrong to all individuals involved in this tragedy, including Hae’s own family. Shame on you. You are the worst character in this whole story.

  22. Mr. Urich,

    Thanks for allowing me numerous attempts to craft YOUR story. Thanks for the free lawyer. Thanks for keeping me out of prison in exchange for the testimony you wanted. Thanks for protecting my accomplice, Jenn.
    Sorry about changing my story yet again during the Intecept interview, but the burial never happened they way you wanted me to say at trial. I did it way later at midnight.
    We need to get together again so I can figure out what to say for trial number two.

  23. I am an attorney, and I can say, without question, that I would not welcome the level of scrutiny and public attention Serial has brought to Mr. Urick. That being said, it is not because I do not stand behind my previous professional conduct, or have doubts as to the veracity of my past cases. It is simply to say, that a bias exists that cannot be denied to have a vastly significant impact on public opinion in matters like the case against Mr. Syed. Let’s acknowledge and understand that Serial was a media piece that underwent editing and production, and was not objective. Details were omitted, unsubstantiated claims were made, agendas served, and personal opinions interjected. Anyone listening to the series should take this into account, before forming any judgment. In light of this information, I still must admit that I agree on many points with Mr. Syed’s advocate. I will not go into detail, as this is just my personal opinion, insofar as to say as much as this case needs reexamined. Murder trials are political in nature, and bring with them a tremendous amount of internal and external pressures and interests, all of which must be served while also attempting to serve justice, and for that reason, I do believe our system is flawed. Mr. Syed’s case does not stand alone in this regard, in fact, it could be said of most high-profile murder cases that subjective review is so desperately warranted. Where this case does stand out, is in the lack of substantial evidence tying Mr. Syed to the crime, with the exception of what appears to be a direct witness with character flaws and account inconsistencies to say the least. Speaking directly to Mr Urick, as another commenter mentioned, you bare no civil liability, or is your career in jeopardy based on the results of secondary judgment in this case, so why are you so staunchly opposed? Is it simply because you believe that without the Serial podcast attention no questions would be raised? I agree, insofar as this case would likely never have been considered for appeal again, however I strongly disagree insofar as media attention or no, this case needs to be reexamined. Put faith in your method and ethics, and genuinely hope for and seek true justice, and you have no complaint to make. Adnan Syed is not unique, as you are surely aware, and thus should be afforded the same rights to process and procedure as every other citizen of this country, which is the standard by which we are held. If you fear secondary judgment will disagree with your conviction, then your emotions are misplaced. It is not your duty to keep killers off the street, it is your duty to produce evidence for interpretation, be insistent when that evidence is sure and true, and relent when it is not. Secondary review of this can only be beneficial.

  24. I have been a prosecutor for nearly 30 years. I have done literally hundreds of jury trials. And my guiding principle has been and always will be seeking justice and this includes justice for the defendant. My burden is heavy (beyond a reasonable doubt) as it should be if someone’s freedom is at stake. A prosecutor has considerable power over the fates of defendants and I take my duty to protect the public from criminals very seriously. However, if I have a reasonable doubt about a defendant’s guilt or innocence I do not go forward. I may think he/she did it, I may even think I know it but if I don’t know it beyond a reasonable doubt, the case is over. This is not always a popular position but it is the only position. I don’t know if Adnan is guilty but it is pretty obvious he didn’t get a fair trial. What are you afraid is going to be discovered about what you did or failed to do to seek justice for Hae and Adnan. This case is a tragedy for both families and my heart goes out to them.

  25. Mr. Ulrich – I think its the Brady violations that you are afraid of and why you are striking out. I’m always amazed by prosecutors who have to validate their actions as “constitutional”. I think you proved in this case that you weren’t interested in the truth. You were interested in winning.

  26. Wisconsin Attorney

    I do not understand why Mr. Urick was more interested in putting someone away than finding out the truth. We may never know the truth behind what happened, but what we do know is that is there is only enough evidence to send Jay to jail (a confession pretty much, he just beat Adnan to the cops). Hope Mr. Urick spends the next 15 years in jail to make up for the time Adnan spent in there.

  27. I suppose I qualify as an experienced criminal trial lawyer, after taking some hundred felony cases to verdict.

    For what it’s worth, I don’t find anything the podcasts say the prosecutors did or didn’t do to be unusual, unethical, or illegal.

    On the other hand, what I’ve heard about the case makes me think it’s one that the prosecutor loses more often than wins. I think what many people don’t realize is that in a good 20% of criminal cases that go to trial neither the prosecutor nor the defense lawyer thinks he knows what “the truth” is, despite their respective best efforts.

    Ours is an adversarial system: The state presents evidence in a way calculated to induce the jury to find the accused guilty; the defense presents evidence, and attacks the state’s evidence, so as to persuade the jury to find the defendant not guilty. Both sides are bound by rules setting boundaries on what they may or may not do, but the principle is that lawyers present, juries decide.

    In cases of self-defense, rape where consent is the defense, and ID cases by strangers, it isn’t at all unusual to have no persuasive forensic evidence. All there is is he-said-she-said and a lot of non-dispositive circumstantial evidence. There is certainly sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty, but not so much that any reasonably juror would be compelled to convict. Most cases never go to trial because there is a high probability of one result or another, and competent counsel can advise the parties what the likely outcome of a trial would be. Rarely do experienced lawyers opinions differ widely. So the cases that do go to trial are often those with no conclusive forensic evidence and no good reason to believe that key witnesses are lying. It’s six to five and pick ’em.

    Beyond reasonable doubt applies to what a juror believes, not what anyone else may decide or be unable to decide. As scary as it is, if a good liar with a good reputation testifies against an innocent person who can’t remember where he was at the critical time, a jury may convict. I’ve heard nothing and read nothing that would make me feel good about deciding either way. For me then, it’s easy: the prosecution carries the burden of persuasion and I’m not persuaded, so it’s Not Guilty. But that’s a very long way from Innocent.

  28. Mr. Urick:
    You state unequivocally:

    “After investigating Ms. McClain’s potential as a witness, Defense Attorney Gutierrez made a reasoned decision not to call her at trial.”

    Yet nowhere in the rest of your response to events do you provide evidence of why that statement is true. What was that “reasoned decision” based on? Did you talk to Ms. Gutierrez? Did she communicate to you in some other way that she made a conscious decision to refrain from using Asia McClain’s possibly exculpatory letters for strategic reasons? And isn’t it just possible that Ms. Gutierrez’s “reasoned decision” — while lacking any corroboration that it was a decision at all rather than pure incompetence — was a poor decision and one that amounted to ineffective defense of Adnan Syed, and thus justifying the appeal?

  29. You found a defense lawyer for Jay. That is ethically anathema. You are sullied and, consequently, the prosecution is sullied by this clear violation of prosecutorial ethics. You did not sustain your burden legitimately. You cheated.

  30. Why did Kevin Urick not have Ms McClain fill out an affidavit at the time he spoke with her over the phone? It seems like such testimony would be valuable not only in the specific hearing in question, but moving forward in any subsequent hearings in the “never ending” stream of litigation he speaks of. It would be hard copy of the defense acting in bad faith trying to bully potential witnesses–I can’t imagine having such an affadavit wouldn’t be a nice thing to hold in your back pocket.

    Additionally, if he had done this, he wouldn’t be in the predicament he finds himself in now. I find it hard to believe that Mr Urick would have voluntarily elected to simply give a hearsay rendition of such potentially valuable testimony…

    …Unless of course getting an affidavit simply wasn’t possible, because the content of his testimony was not congruous with what Ms McClain actually communicated to him that day.

  31. Mr. Urick you are a horrible human being.

  32. “The law allows a convicted felon a nearly never ending ability to continually attack the results we obtained.” Yes. Yes, it does. This case is a perfect example of *why* that is allowed. Your handling of Jay Wilds legal status and your finding him an attorney should be legal issues that *you* have to deal with, but the Maryland court system allowed you to get away with some patently illegal things in this case. You deeply bent, if not broke, the rules several times to get this conviction, and now you’re rightly concerned that it may be overturned.

  33. Hi Mr. Urick,

    Don’t listen to these fools. I believe you did the right thing and that the verdict was completely constitutionally valid. Adnan Syed and his supporters are just trying to vainly get him out of imprisonment at any and all cause, with disregard for his guilt. They will say white is black and black is white if that what it takes. Thank you for taking a stance for the poor girl and her family. This case is a true tragedy but seems common enough. The evidence just fits.

    Also, I don’t know who these trolls are on the internet. Paid supporters? Paid to write stupid blog commentary? Your letter made complete sense to me.

  34. Urick,

    Your constitutionally a dirtbag…how do you sleep at night? Integrity – does the word mean anything to you?

    The Truth is coming….

  35. What a laugh riot this piece from Mr. Urich is! How pathetically self serving. It’s worth noting that it was written back in February of 2015. If folks take the time to listen to the complete “Undisclosed” podcast, most especially the recent September 2015 episodes, it’s all too clear from the facts and evidence presented by lawyers Rabia Chaudry, Colin Miller and Susan Simpson, just how corrupt Mr. Urich in fact is. He and the Baltimore police detectives that worked on the Adnan Syed case are, simply put, the worst that our criminal justice system have to offer. They are the epitome of dirty cops and prosecutors. (This is apparently, nothing new if you listen to the podcast’s outline of the historical facts surrounding the corruption at trials over the years in Baltimore, and all with the same cast of dirty characters to boot.) It’s nothing short of outrageous that prosecutors in this great land of ours can get away with such willful lying and illegal prosecutorial tactics. The truth outs itself Kevin. You are busted. 😉 PS To Common Sense above – Integrity doesn’t mean anything to creatures like Urich.

  36. Mr. Urick–If you’re so sure of your personal and professional integrity, why do you feel the need to lie and hide evidence? Why lie to Asia and then purger yourself about it? Why are you so afraid of your case(s) being scrutinized?? If you acted honestly and fairly, shouldn’t your actions withstand review? Why are you so afraid of the truth about this case (and many others, I’m sure) coming to light? Shouldn’t you be welcoming this scrutiny? Aren’t you sure that your actions will be upheld as just and fair?

    Maybe it’s time you admitted the truth before it comes out on its own. At what point do you think Adnan’s supporters will stop fighting for the truth to come out? Here’s a hint–never.

  37. Wow… Not shocking that the mysterious Seamus Duncan was the 1st (& one of the only) supporters to comment. Sometimes I feel he & Urick are one in the same… What IS shocking, to me at least, is Mr Urick’s pathetic attempts at trying to convince someone, anyone, of his conviction. He knows his ship is sinking & he’s using his shoe to try & dump the rushing water back out.

    It is disgusting what you did to this KID. It sickens me to think of what your illegal & immoral actions have done to this poor girl’s family. Making them feel as tho they’ve had justice all these years only to have to go through a media sensation to try & find the truth. What is truly sad is ALL of your convictions are going to be scrutinized, even the legit ones, & I wonder how many actual criminals will get out because of your incompetence.

    I cannot believe there are people (totally unrelated to you, with no skin in the game) who support your tactics. I hope you feel the sh¡tstorm that’s about to hit… I doubt your shoe will be of any help soon enough.

  38. Wow. This case has truly opened my eyes to how scary this “justice system” is. When Urick and his ilk can railroad an innocent man into jail…actually, an innocent CHILD with the most unethical means, how is ANY of us safe? I fear for the citizens of this country when people like him are allowed to roam free. The only way to stop prosecutorial and police misconduct/unethical behavior is to make it automatic that if someone is convicted and sentenced based on such horrible and shoddy investigative techniques, they prosecutor and the detectives will receive the SAME sentence as the accused. In this case, if the courts find all of the inconsitencies and miscarriage of justice as abhorrent as we do, Urick, McGillivary, Ritz, Wash, etc should be put in jail equal to the time that Adnan serves at the time of his release. Just a thought.

  39. Failure by the criminal justice system put someone behind bars for half his life, who may not belong there and failed to bring justice to the victim and her family.

  40. Disgusted by prosecution’s blatant neglect for investigating the death of Ms. Lee. Witch hunt for Adnan Sayed! You have made an embarrassment of our judicial system.

  41. Oh my god… Is he actually doubling down on his blatant perjury? Why on gods green earth would Asia have called you and confessed her secrets candidly for you to relay honestly to the court, and then as soon as ANYONE other than Urick asks her she suddenly is an evil maser mind now in league with the massive conspiracy to ruin his honest Urick’s good name??

    Just sayin Kev… the other possibility.,, the one where you are just REALLY sleezy and dishonest… In that scenario, everyone’s motivations and behavior make perfect sense and follows from what everyone would expect. But you say it’s definetly the Asia is an evil mastermind except the day she called you and candidly confessed everything? Ok…

    Next time he’s gonna be telling us Asia is actually one of David Ick’s shapeshifting lizard illuminati hellbent on freeing murderers and destroying ex-Baltimore prosecutors good name. And I’m guessing Seamus Duncan will be the first comment to respond agreeing fervently and posting annotated video clips of evidence of her camouflage suit showing her true purpose.

    Or maybe Kevin Urick is just a sleezy dishonest person acting the way sleezy dishonest people do.

  42. Amazing the lack of knowledge about this case by some of the people defending Adnan. Clearly he is the murderer and his defenders are SJWs desperately trying to get a notch on their belt, if not some additional cash to pad the coffers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*