Rolling Stone Covers Latest Developments in Adnan Syed

I recently had the pleasure of speaking with journalist Amelia McDonell-Perry about the Adnan Syed case.  Here is her coverage in Rolling Stone on the latest developments in the case.

Post Conviction and Appellate Criminal Defense Attorney practicing throughout Maryland and DC, business owner, mother of two. Since establishing the Law Offices of Erica J. Suter, LLC in 2011, the life sentences of ten of my clients have been modified or vacated. I have also obtained relief for clients who were not serving life. I try to treat my clients the way that I would want to be treated if I were sitting on the other side of the table, with dignity, respect, and honesty. I love teaching and will share what I’ve learned with anyone who is interested. I have been selected to the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association’s Best Lawyers Under 40, as a Super Lawyer Rising Star (Washington, DC and Maryland), for membership in the National Trial Lawyers Top 100 Lawyers, and as a Maryland Top 40 Under 40 Criminal Defense Lawyer. I earned my JD from Georgetown University, my MA from the University of Chicago, and my BA from Bates College. Follow me on twitter @suterlaw email me at

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

2 thoughts on “Rolling Stone Covers Latest Developments in Adnan Syed

  1. Hello Erica

    I always enjoy the way you get to the crux of what is important and explain the legalities in basic language, so I was really pleased to see your comments in RS.

    Wrt the two sisters who have now come forward stating that Asia was prepared to lie for Adnan, isn’t this issue without merit unless Christina Gutierrez was aware of them? I thought that the main strength of Asia’s evidence in relation to ineffective cousel was the fact that nobody contacted her or checked whether she was correct or not.

    Thank you for answering my previous questions.

    • Thanks Becky. I would expect that the State is trying to argue is that if the case were sent back down on the alibi issue in motion to reopen status (as opposed to retrial), that the State could demonstrate that there was no prejudice resulting from the failure to put on the alibi because if the defense did, the State could put on these two alleged witnesses who would testify that Asia is lying. It’s an absurd position from a procedural standpoint. If the State has two witnesses that will impeach the alibi, the proper place to hear them is on retrial not in a hearing on a Motion to Reopen.