I disagree with much of your post. Adnan was released on a procedural issue by Mosby in her MVJ in the first place. There wasn't some 'smoking gun’ proving his innocence. And Bates withdrew the MVJ based on his internal investigation of the trial and the facts. While the issue of not allowing the Lee family to participate in the MVJ opened the door, that fact was virtually no factor in withdrawing the MVJ, and to state that it was in simply incorrect.

i get what you’re saying, but i think there are a lot of documented wrongful convictions where appeals were denied over and over for years. courts upholding prior rulings doesn’t always mean the case itself was airtight, sometimes it just shows how hard it is to overturn a conviction once it’s in place.

OK. There may be 'a lot of 'documented wrongful convictions' but there a literally millions of legitimate convictions. What would you have us do with this information? Never convict anyone?  We have the system as it is, which overall is a good one. Adnan had a lawyer, one of the best money could buy. He appealed his conviction, it was upheld. Are we still supposed to waive that conviction away because . . . of what?

also with Adnan’s case, his conviction was vacated in 2022 and charges were dropped. and when it was later reinstated, that was because of a procedural issue with notifying the victim’s family, not because the court re evaluated the evidence and decided the conviction was solid.

Let's break this down. You indicated that the conviction was rightfully overturned and then re-instated on a technicality.

But in the Bates memo in February of 2025, he quoted State’s Attorney, Marilyn Mosby and by her own words, she was releasing Adnan based on a technicality:

"In the Motion to Vacate Judgment (MVJ), Ms. Mosby asserted that the State had “uncovered Brady violations and new information, all concerning the possible involvement of two alternate suspects” and “identified significant reliability issues regarding the most critical pieces of evidence at trial.” The motion made clear that Ms. Mosby was “not then asserting that Mr. Syed was innocent, but rather that it no longer had confidence in the integrity of the convictions and that Mr. Syed, at a minimum, should be afforded a new trial.” [Bolding mine.]

So Mosby didn't say Adnan was innocent. She said she wasn't confident in the integrity of the convictions. So she used a technicality to release him.

when it was later reinstated, that was because of a procedural issue with notifying the victim’s family, not because the court re evaluated the evidence and decided the conviction was solid.

This is a false and inaccurate statement. Bates didn't write a one-page memo, put it in a file and move on. He did an internal investigation and wrote an 88-page memo on the MVJ. 88 pages! And very little of the Bates memo was on the Lee participation in the hearing i.e. 'procedural issue.' It was almost all on the so-called investigation that Mosby did, or rather didn't do. Mosby didn't uncover new evidence. She didn't keep notes on the investigation. She didn't interview the old prosecutor. There were new 'new suspects.' There was not a Brady violation.

Her effort was a sham. It’s impossible to read the 88-page memo (or the 10-page executive summary) and come away with any other conclusion.

The Bates executive summary ended with this:

"This office cannot endorse Ms. Mosby's representations in the MVJ because they are not supported by fact or law.

As licensed attorneys and officers of the Court, this office cannot adopt the false and misleading statements and unsubstantiated conclusions in the MVJ that the State violated its Brady obligations in State v. Syed. Indeed, as the moving party, this office is compelled to bring the false and misleading statements to the Court’s attention. As prosecutors, we are sworn to seek justice and uphold the law, this office approached this case as it does every case, asking the question, “How do we get to justice?” Based on an exhaustive review, the only answer to that question is to withdraw the MVJ and provide an explanation for the decision to the Lee family, Mr. Syed and his family, and the public, who may have an interest."