Episode 7: Presumption of Innocence

I agree that this week's episode was very compelling. Koenig's introduction of the Innocence Project team brought a lot of new insights to Adnan's case, specifically about how his evidence was dealt with and the concept of presumption of innocence. I was also interested in the effect that the introduction of this new team had on Koenig and her role as narrator.

One of the key points that Enright, head of The Innocence Project at the University of Virginia Law School, brings up regarding Adnan’s case is the concept of presumption of innocence. In our courts, we adhere to the idea of “innocent until proven guilty.” However, Enright claims that although juries are meant to be objective, when one is called into court and sees a suspect on the stand, the members of the jury are likely to assume that he or she is guilty of something. Therefore, while on paper we claim innocent until proven guilty, often the people making the decisions are influenced by preconceptions.

It was particularly fascinating that the first thing Enright claimed she had to give back to Adnan was his “presumption of innocence” and go from there. Serial has been framed since the beginning around the idea of whether or not Adnan is guilty. While this is for the most part due to the fact that he has already been convicted, Enright’s comment is still quite profound. As opposed to trying to determine that he is not guilty, she starts from the basis that he is innocent until proven guilty, an extra step that has the potential of being lost when looking into the case of a convicted subject.

Another interesting part of this episode is Koenig’s role in it. While in the last episode she presented the case of the prosecution, she framed it in a way that still left space for reasonable doubt. She seemed to be playing devil’s advocate, attempting to soften every blow from the prosecution’s case. Conversely, in this episode Enright and her team are clearly are on the side of Adnan’s innocence. Suddenly, Koenig’s doubts begin to show, prompting Enright point out that she “sound[s] really down on Adnan today.” From then Koenig begins to unravel some doubts that she holds, even questioning if he “is this amazing sociopath” who is “play[ing]” her. She again plays the role of the devil’s advocate, but this time, for the opposite side. This sudden reveal of her doubts makes me question if she is deliberately trying to maintain this state of constant doubt in her listeners for entertainment value or if she is truly this confused?

In an NPR interview with Koenig, she answers a question about if she was worried about the podcast and Adnan’s story being treated as entertainment rather than investigative reporting. She maintains that the producers of the series and herself worried a lot about the content becoming “entertainment” and they needed “to treat [it] with the utmost professionalism and care.” However, doesn't it sometimes seem that the structure of the show promotes this story as a form of entertainment? Is this simply a natural phenomenon of a podcast or is there more that could have been done to draw a line between the “entertainment” and “investigative reporting?”

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/23/372577482/serial-host-sarah-koenig-says-she-set-out-to-report-not-exonerate