Featured Image Credit: HBO
Topics: True Crime, News
Gregory Robinson
There has been an update in the 1999 murder case of 18-year-old Hae Min Lee, whose ex-boyfriend, Adnan Syed, was convicted.
Syed was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life behind bars in 2000, has always asserted his innocence and has fought to reverse the conviction for more than two decades.
Things may be turning in his favour, after Syed's legal team filed a joint motion with the Baltimore City State's Attorney for modern DNA tested to be conducted on Lee's clothes, shoes and rape kit.
Advert
The motion was obtained by People, and the publication reports the motion states the items have never been tested for DNA.
DNA testing could potentially rule out Syed and identify new suspects who might have been unknown to investigators in 1999.
Syed's legal team would not request DNA testing on the items if they did not believe that it would rule him innocent in the murder case.
Defence attorney Erica J. Suter showed enthusiasm after the legal motion was filed and told People: "We are eager to finally have access to the forensic tools to establish Mr. Syed's innocence."
The murder case has fascinated true crime fans for years, particularly listeners of the true crime podcast Serial.
The first season of the podcast focused solely on this case when it was released in 2014, and identified holes in the investigation, which raised doubts about whether the right person had been convicted for the horrific crime.
Lee was a high school student when she vanished on 13th January 1999 in Baltimore County, Maryland. Her body was discovered in a city park on 9th February and was identified two days later.
The case was immediately investigated as a homicide and Syed was arrested and charged with first-degree murder on 28th February.
Syed was convicted of first degree murder, kidnapping, false imprisonment, and robbery on the 25th February 2000 after a six-week trial.
In 2016, Adnan was granted a retrial by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals on the grounds that he had received ineffective legal counsel at his original trial, however this was denied by Maryland Court of Appeals in March 2019 in a split 4–3 ruling.