The Undisclosed Podcast Returns With the Bombshell Evidence in the Adnan Syed Case

Today, the Undisclosed Podcast returned with the first of six new episode on the Adnan Syed case. This one covers the legal bombshell I’ve previewed for years. So, what is it? Here’s a quick summary of what we covered in the episode.

At Syed’s trial, the State’s star witness was Jay Wilds, who testified to helping him in the wake of the murder of Hae Min Lee. At trial, Wilds’s printed plea agreement was introduced into evidence. The agreement provided that, in exchange for Wilds’s testimony at trial, Assistant State’s Attorney Kevin Urick would recommend a five year prison sentence, with all but two years suspended (i.e., Wilds would serve two years in prison). Wilds himself testified to the terms of the plea agreement, stating that his testimony “obligates Mr. Urick” to recommend a five year prison sentence, with all but two years suspended.

When I started blogging about this case back in 2014, Jay’s attorney, Anne Benaroya reached out to me. She agreed to share details about her representation of Wilds, but only if I agreed solely to disclose information she approved due to her duty of confidentiality to her client. I agreed, and thereafter, Benaroya informed me about agreements or understandings not reflected in Wilds’s printed plea agreement. Specifically, she said that, before the start of Syed’s second trial, there were agreements that (1) Urick would make a leniency recommendation of no prison time for Wilds; and (2) Urick would not oppose Benaroya’s motion for Probation Before Judgment (“PBJ”). PBJ means that Wilds’s conviction for accessory after the fact to murder would have been wiped from his record if he didn’t violate his parole. 

Notably, Urick did make a leniency recommendation and did not oppose PBJ at Wilds’s sentencing hearing. Even more notably, Benaroya told me that she reached out to Ethics Counsel in Maryland about the case so that Ethics Counsel could speak to the prosecutors at Syed’s trial. And, according to Benaroya, this is exactly what happened, with Ethics Counsel reporting to her that the prosecutors shared her understanding of the plea agreement:

Benaroya told me she did not want this information aired on a podcast, a request I honored for a decade. But then, Benaroya appeared on the Just Legal History Podcast and discussed in part why Wilds received no prison time. This then opened the door for me sharing my information.

Why is it so important? You might recall that Sarah Koenig spoke to juror Stella Armstrong on Serial. Armstrong said she found Adnan guilty because she couldn’t see any reason that Jay would lie when he knew his testimony would send him to prison. When Koenig told Armstrong that Wilds walked, she was shocked and said how strange that was.

Strange, and also a clear Brady violation based on three opinions by Maryland’s highest court: (1) Ware v. State, 702 A.2d 699 (Md. 1997); (2) Wilson v. State, 768 A.2d 675 (2001); and (3) Harris v. State, 966 A.2d 925, 934 (Md. 2009). All three of these opinions stand for the proposition that “the prosecutor’s duty to disclose applies to any understanding or agreement between the witness and the State.”  

I’ll will keep you updated as this situation develops.

-CM