The fact that America's dumbest criminal has also been America's most successful criminal really makes you wonder about how this criminal justice system actually works.

In 1999, the Baltimore crime lab told detectives that they had found human skin cells on a liquor bottle lying beside Hae's body.

The detectives told the lab they didn't want a DNA profile obtained from those cells.

How different the past 22 years might've been if they had.

Mosby, on dismissing the charges against Adnan: 'The case is over.'

All charges have been dismissed against Adnan. He is free, finally.

I still can't get over the fact there's a senate candidate who has been diagnosed with DID/multiple personality disorder, and the only time this really comes up is when he gets caught in a new scandal and has to blame it on one of his alternate personalities.

It was refreshing to hear the Justices seek clarification about the biggest, & simplest, problem in the State's case.

The killer was in a little blue car. Joey was in a white truck. He had no blue car to change into, and no time to make a change. So... how could he have done it?

Oral arguments have concluded.

And now we wait for the Court to issue its decision. If it upholds the trial court's order overturning his conviction, then Joey will be returned to Floyd County to face a retrial.

A few Justices express skepticism that the bullets not matching would 'close the door' to admission of the grave dog evidence.

Cribbs points out there was nothing really connecting grave dog to Joey in the first place, so anything that separates them further still is important.

Justice Pinson brings up grave dog. If the State *had* disclosed the caliber of the bullet that killed grave dog (and that it didn't match any caliber connected to Joey) would that have kept the evidence out?

Cribbs points out some of the many ways that the juror's drive test was factually incorrect, and based on missing evidence at trial, which is what compelled the juror to try to find some answers in the first place.

But the juror did not test the route that was actually at issue.

The Justices are back again to the blue car.

Multiple Justices are aware of this glaring problem in the state's case, and quiz Cribbs about whether Joey could've possibly had a blue car, or had time to switch into a blue car. (The answer is no and no.)

The Justices are getting into the weeds of the constitutional nature of the claim. When does juror misconduct become a confrontation clause violation?

The question of where that line is drawn is murky (though the facts of this case place it well beyond wherever that line may be)

Georgia Innocence Project That's common practice — and currently established precedent that yes, it is — but Justice Peterson muses about whether that should be revisited. Then tells Cribbs to 'not let his question derail her,' and resume her argument.

Christina Cribbs from Georgia Innocence Project is now up for the appellee, Joey Watkins.

Justice Peterson begins with an interesting question about whether the same amount of deference is afforded to a trial court that adopts a prepared order provided by a party, as was done here.