In a statement obtained by Newsweek, Baltimore City State Attorney Marilyn Mosby filed the motion that called for a “new trial for Syed based on a nearly year-long investigation that revealed undisclosed and newly-developed information regarding two alternative suspects, as well as unreliable cell phone tower data.”
The motion comes several years after Syed was convicted of murdering his ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee in 2000. Syed was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years. The case gained national attention as Syed continued to maintain his innocence, and the 2014 podcast Serial shined light on the investigation into Lee’s death.
In the statement, Mosby’s office said that the motion does not explicitly assert that Syed is innocent but noted that “when considering the totality of the circumstances, the State lacks confidence in the integrity of the conviction and requests that Mr. Syed be afforded a new trial.”
“If the court grants this motion, it will effectively put Mr. Syed in a new trial status—his convictions will be vacated but the case remains active. Whether the State ultimately continues with a trial in this matter or dismisses the charges will depend on the outcome of the ongoing investigation,” the statement said.
“The State will be requesting that defendant be released on his own recognizance or bail pending the investigation should this Court grant the instant motion.”
Mosby said in the statement that her office believes “that keeping Mr. Syed detained as we continue to investigate the case with everything that we know now, when we do not have confidence in results of the first trial, would be unjust.”
According to Mosby’s office, new evidence suggests that there could be two other possible suspects in Lee’s death, not Syed.
“The two suspects may be involved individually or may be involved together. These suspects were known persons at the time of the original investigation and were not properly ruled out nor disclosed to the defense,” the statement said.
Additionally, Mosby’s office said that Syed’s original trial was largely determined by cellphone records. The statement said that during the original trial, there was a notice filed advising prosecutors not to use billing locations for incoming cellphone calls.
“Despite this notice, prosecutors used the billing location for incoming calls for exactly that purpose – to prove that the defendant was in a particular area at a particular time,” the statement said.
“Based on the cellular technology at the time of the incident in this case, it was possible that an incoming call could be recorded at the last registered tower/sector and not the current one when the signal is sent across multiple towers within an area.”
Update 9/14/22, 4:18 p.m. ET: This story was updated with additional information.
