ISBA Development Site
This website is for ISBA staff use only. All visitors should return to the main ISBA website.
Thoughts on Serial and bias
In 2014, the Serial podcast examined the conviction of Adnan Syed in Maryland. There has been much discussion of what went wrong and mistakes by cops and attorneys. However, there was not a lot of discussion of racial and gender bias that may have played a role.
Research has shown that juror perceptions of attorneys can play a role.1 Jurors can be influenced by bias against minority defendants, especially when not aware of their bias.2 Research shows that the race and gender of the attorney may increase the risk of conviction when the lawyer is a woman of color.3 White male attorneys are more likely to win than a woman of color.4 An aggressive male attorney will win more than a passive female one, but defendants with aggressive female attorneys were more likely to be convicted.5 This bias against minority defendants and minority attorneys can be seen in Serial.
Serial’s host, Sarah Koenig, wondered if racial bias against the defendant played some role.6 The Muslim community sensed bias when stereotypes of Muslim men being sexist and wanting control were skirted at trial.7 Koenig concluded stereotypes were lurking because jurors she interviewed said other jurors said things like Arabic men wanted control and women were second-class citizens.8 That indicates there was at least some racial bias in the jury, but it doesn’t have to be conscious bias. The jurors could have been unaware of the biases they held when deliberating the case.
Koenig also discussed Adnan’s attorney, Christina Gutierrez, who had been a respected criminal defense attorney but ended up disbarred for mishandling client funds a few years after Adnan’s conviction.9 Adnan’s first trial ended in a mistrial because the judge called her a liar.10 Gutierrez was Hispanic and female, which may have increased Adnan’s chance of conviction given the research into race and gender bias.
In the second trial, Gutierrez’s cross-examination of the accused accessory was aggressive.11 Unfortunately, the jury believed the witness.12 Koenig wondered if the mostly black jury saw a white woman attacking a black man.13 At one point, he asked the judge if he could tell her to stop yelling at him.14 This shows another implicit bias against women: if they’re seen as aggressive, then they aren’t acting like a woman should act. As research has shown, minority female attorneys suffer a double bias and juries do not like aggressive female attorneys. But Gutierrez likely would have been judged if she was passive. The jury may have been biased against Gutierrez because of her style and because of her race and gender.
Koenig didn’t think there was much racial bias on the jury’s part, but she was looking for conscious bias. There was likely implicit bias against Adnan and his attorney. Bias against minority and female attorneys present problems in figuring out how they should present a case because they are judged for being aggressive and judged for being passive. But by addressing implicit bias, perhaps people will be more aware.