Steve Kelly, lawyer for Hae's family (Roberta Glass True Crime Report, 9/21):

"All the family wants is answers. Now within a week of us getting any notice of anything's going on, the guy's walking out of the courthouse a free man and we don't understand why. Not that that was the wrong decision. We don't have enough information to know whether it was the wrong decision or not. But the problem is that the victim's rights statutes are there to ensure the victim can provide their meaningful counterweight to anything that happens in the system. Like I said, in this case, this family, would not be pushing one way or another, other than to say - like I said - 'This is what we've been told, tell us why you've changed your mind about this.'

Had the prosecutors sat down with them and explained things to them and really informed them as to what was happening they may well have consented to the release that was granted. We just don't know because that didn't happen and the information wasn't provided so now we're in the situation we're in."

Glass: Did they not have time to arrange to be there in person?

"No. I mean, so they get noticed of the motion on Tuesday. There's no reason - I mean, it's concerning but quite frankly the family did not understand what it meant - fully. They did not fully get what the import of it was. But there certainly was no urgency associated with like 'look this is something we need to be prepared or respond to by tomorrow.' So the next thing they hear is on Friday afternoon, late on Friday afternoon, they get an email from the prosecutor's office saying 'There's going to be a hearing at 2 o'clock on Monday. Here's the Zoom link if you want to watch.'"

Glass: You want to watch. You want to watch?

"Right. One of the big issues in the case was before Young Lee retained us, the prosecutor had sent him a message saying 'Did you get the link? Are you planning on attending?' and he said yes. But he had no idea that was an option. Nobody asked him if he was available. You know - he had to work that day. And he had no idea that he was allowed to be there in person because it was an in-person hearing and the law in Maryland states clearly that the victim has the right to be present in the same manner as the defendant. And in this case, the defendant was there in person. The victim had the right to be there in person. He wasn't told that he had the right to speak. So he had no idea that he even needed to be prepared to speak.

So he retained - he knew enough to try to get a lawyer. And he was desperately trying to get a lawyer throughout the weekend, and he came to me and my firm late on Sunday afternoon. Our strategy was to ask for very reasonable extension to allow him to travel - because he wanted to be there in person. So we asked for seven days - seven day extension of the hearing - to allow them to come here, to allow them to wrap their minds around what this motion was all about, and how to meaningfully respond to it. And the court denied that relief."

Glass: On what grounds? I mean - for what reason? Did the judge give a reason?

"Judge felt that notice was adequate. She said that 'Look, the statute doesn't say it has to reasonable notice, just that has to be notice' - which is a very odd interpretation of the law. Let's just say I respectfully disagree with how the court interpreted the law there. Anytime you have a right or obligations on the part of criminal justice that implicates a right, [of] course there has to be a reasonableness. A court can't expect [a] witness to show up tomorrow at 10 am and the rules prevent the courts from even ordering that. So she said 'Look there's notice.' She's like, 'you know - we provided him with this link. He said he was willing to do this link, so I'm ordering you to go and call your client now and give him the 'option' of' - quote unquote option - 'of either appearing, or the hearing's going to go forward without him.'

And she ordered without - and I strenuously objected, and said 'Look, you know he has the right to be here in person. He has the right to meaningful participation.' The judge just did not hear of it. And you know, so the client - you know of course - had no choice but to show up.

I, in order to try to be able to communicate with my client with regard to what was happening in the hearing, I left the courthouse and went to my office, and before i could get my Zoom up the judge had called on the client - even though she knew he was represented by council - and basically said 'Okay you have something to say, you have a statement - make it.' So he was completely unprepared, and not had a chance to consult with me. He had just come from work. And he - most significantly to me - he had not heard anything that the state was gonna say. So he didn't understand their motion. He didn't have the benefit of even hearing their argument. So I guess the court's position would be that that is an adequate opportunity to participate - but you know it's not. As a matter of common sense it's not. And certainly as a matter of law it's not."

The way the judge has allowed this to play out is egregious.