steveluck7 said:So might AH's team motion for a directed verdict, basically for show? The drawback would be, once it's denied, handing the keys back to the state for their closing statements but if you're not really going to put up a defense, is there a practical downside?
They don't have alibi (Aaron was in CA [arranging for a shipment of guns] that night), or an alternative boogy-man (let me show you why it was really Charlie Boy/Bo/whatever...), so there isn't much of a non-scientific defense they can present.joe dokes said:
Not so much "think they've won." More like "this is our best shot."
They probably just think that there isn't anything a defense witness can do for them that they can't do themselves in closing argument (which is basically just poke enough holes in the govt's theory to get a juror to doubt reasonably). And the govt can't cross-examine witnesses that don't testify.
soxfan121 said:
Seems that way to me, as well. Despite the conviction of some, the State's case has some awfully big holes in it. Yes, the admissible pile of circumstantial evidence is daunting and yes, the stuff that didn't get in ("I'm with NFL, just so you know") makes it seem like Hernandez is guilty...I don't know if the three missing pieces above can be covered with what the State has put forward.
Usually yes. Sometimes not if the violation is so egregious as to offend justice. The rationale is that if the defense attorney/defendant really want a redo, they need to ask for it right then and there - they can't "wait and see" and then wave their hands about after a guilty verdict is returned. There's also the issue of whether, when moving for a mistrial, the judge can't fashion a remedy to cure the violation, such as an instruction, etc.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
Do you have to ask for a mistrial to preserve an appeal on the issue?
100% this. AH was not at a club at the time of the killing. Also, see the consciousness of guilt instruction. This could well be a false statement for the purpose of that instruction (not sure about that though)NortheasternPJ said:
I thought they called Kraft to show AH is a known liar and / or show that AH knew when Lloyd died. There's no way AH can say to Kraft the next day (or day after) any of that stuff and not be a liar. Even if he knew nothing about Lloyd's death until it happened, it showed that AH blatantly lied to Kraft's face and hugged and kissed him after. To me that is what was brought home was that AH boldly lied to "extended family" and had the balls to act like nothing happened and lied about even being remotely involved. Even HRB can't not come to this conclusion.
This is very true Steve. It generally works better in shorter trials, where not so much steam has been built up. Here, there are so many overlapping pieces of information that establish the timeline. I expect they're going to do something.Steve Dillard said:I suspect, and RR will undoubtedly know this exactly, that there is some psychological aspect to the confidence of resting without calling any witnesses. If you have little positive to say, just pretend the negative didn't hurt (or rise to the necessary level).
Shelterdog said:
Juries convict on far less all the time--the three missing areas could be covered (You could imagine a juror who bought the state's case saying eah there's no gun--but he had one like 2 minutes after he shot the guy and his wife threw it away! Yeah there's no eyewitness--but footprints and his car's tire tracks and his bullet casings were all there, and there was video of him going in and out! And yeah there's no motive, but they were mixed up in flophouses and drugs and gun running and stuff so who really cares, and motive isn't an element anyway). Of course this jury might not agree.
Schnerres said:-Do you have any idea when this will end?
-What kind of outcomes are possible? Is there a likely scenario coming up?
-What kind of follow-up is possible from the double murder in Boston?
[excuse me for the weird questions, I´m from Germany, i can´t watch this in TV and have no idea about your legal system and after following this thread for a few days now, i still have not much of an idea about those simple questions. Thank you.]
Doesn't that just maximize billable hours?crystalline said:Yes, and Boston.com had a recent article about how Sultan and his partner excel at getting verdicts reversed on appeal.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2015/03/13/turning-verdicts-specialty-for-aaron-hernandez-defense-team/dauqYjXnkoYgLy0rCrS1II/story.html
BrunanskysSlide said:
I'm wondering if they even call anyone. It might be the best strategy at this point to put on a show acting like you know the State didn't prove their case. Argue the hell out of lack of motive, no direct evidence, no murder weapon.
joe dokes said:
They are probably (not entirely on top of mass law) required to move for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the state's case in order to argue on appeal that the evidence was insufficient. It will be a pro forma effort, since there is zero chance it will succeed.
BrunanskysSlide said:
I'm wondering if they even call anyone. It might be the best strategy at this point to put on a show acting like you know the State didn't prove their case. Argue the hell out of lack of motive, no direct evidence, no murder weapon.
Rovin Romine said:
FWIW, this won't be in done in front of the jury, so there's no one to appreciate the rhetorical flourish. Sometimes you have to do it to preserve an issue, but here, there is in fact zero chance it gets granted - the state has passed that threshold.
It also basically telegraphs the main thrust of your arguments for the state. (In some cases it's possible to use the JOA/DV to lay down a "false trail," in the hopes the state will make a big deal of it in their closing - and you can then sucker punch them on that ground in your closing.)
Arguing a lack of motive may well violate a judge's order - depends on what agreement was reached re: AH's character.
Arguing no direct evidence is probably not as good as it sounds in isolation. Basically "direct evidence" would be an eyewitness to the shooting who can ID the shooter. Those are rare. And even so, the jury still has to infer mental state for murder.
Arguing no murder weapon could also backfire, depending on what they say and how they push it. I think it's pretty clear to the jury why the murder weapon wasn't found.
There are "technically correct" closes that a defense attorney can make (a laundry list of problems) that may actually be more ineffective than going for broke and embracing a crazy theory at closing that wasn't developed in trial. This is because the jury already knows the "counter arguments" to each defense point, but the crazy theory is new and can't be countered with new facts from the state.
I still think the defense's best bet is "They stopped at the park to smoke up and play with handguns, PCP Wallace flipped out and shot OL, AH panicked, didn't want to lose his endorsements, was (physically/actually) threatened by psycho Wallace's crazy actions, and so helped him to get rid of him. But before AH could come up with the best plan, the police were circling his house." It's weak and it's a stretch. But could it have reasonably happened? Yeah. Did the state explore this in the trial for you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury? NO! Railroading! Blah blah blah.
soxfan121 said:
Sure, and I expect a conviction on - at minimum - the gun charges. But for all the imaginings above, it's not hard to conceive of a juror going "no gun, no motive, not there" and voting to acquit.
Some people I respect very much have categorically stated AH is guilty (of murder) and I don't necessarily agree, given what has been shown to this jury. If Rolling Stone were admissible, AH'd have been convicted weeks ago...but this is a different stew.
Jnai said:
But they were doing drugs all the time at Hernandez's house. Why did they decide, on that night, to go out to a random industrial park?
soxfan121 said:
Seems that way to me, as well. Despite the conviction of some, the State's case has some awfully big holes in it. Yes, the admissible pile of circumstantial evidence is daunting and yes, the stuff that didn't get in ("I'm with NFL, just so you know") makes it seem like Hernandez is guilty...I don't know if the three missing pieces above can be covered with what the State has put forward.
norm from cheers said:A motion by the Defense to prohibit Bradley's testimony tomorrow quoting a Boston Globe article where Bradley Civil Attorney said putting Bradley on the stand would be like "opening a Pandora's Box".
http://cdn-static.wildabouttrial.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/3-30-15-CW-v.-Hernandez-Bristol-Superior-Court-316-Def-motion-to-reconsider-admissability-and-exclude-Bradley-testimony.pdf
Average Reds said:It's high comedy to see counsel for the defense argue that a witness should be disallowed to testify because the prosecutor doesn't know what they might say.
They then argue that Bradley's testimony places the case against AH in jeopardy by raising the odds of a mistrial that is the product of prosecutorial misconduct, which would mean Hernandez could not be retried.
They are clearly terrified that Bradley alone will convict their client.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
I think this is more just a move to try to control the prosecution. They essentially have it set up where, if Bradley starts to go off the rails, they can say, "judge, we told you this exact thing was going to happen." I think a motion like this probably fires a shot across the bow -- it requires the prosecutor to sit Bradley down and say, "listen, this is important, you're only allowed to say X, do you understand?" I think it has some benefit if that's all they get out of it. It's really a no lose proposition -- if Bradley does start to go off the rails, they have set themselves up pretty well for a "you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube" kind of argument.
Rovin Romine said:
Nice. They're trying to set up an argument that should Bradley cross a line, any resulting mistrial would be final (i.e., there would no retrial, because the state's responsible for the mistrial). AH would walk free.
I'm not sure I entirely buy it - since Bradley's going to be voir dired and presumably instructed on his testimony by the judge in open court. Absent some showing that the prosecution knows, rock solid, that Bradley would blow up on the stand anyway. . .
One way out of this is for the defense to stipulate to Bradley's testimony; i.e., admit to the jury as an unalterable fact that AH had access to handguns (or whatever Bradley is going to testify to). I suspect they want to cross Bradley to dirty him up, but don't want any risk that Bradley will jump the fence - i.e., have their cake and eat it too.
Average Reds said:
Of course, you are right about the strategy.
Still funny to see the defense making what are essentially pro-prosecution arguments in their brief.
I agree - look for my post above.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
Yeah, RR will have to tell us, but it seems like a stretch that it's prosecutorial misconduct (creating double jeopardy) to put a witness on the stand who might blurt something out, because . . . . newspaper article!
theapportioner said:
I don't get the prosecution's angle here -- Bradley probably adds little marginal value to their case, but if the risk of a mistrial from his testimony is 10 or even 5%, that would be disastrous for the DA. You have a ton of evidence already, why try to overreach and risk ruining it all?
Rovin Romine said:This is coming to mind because of the whole "I was AH's friend and he shot me in the face" testimony that's lurking in the background.
Kull said:
For those wondering why you put Bradley on the stand, if RR's comment above is a legitimate line of questioning, it is absolutely worth it. The entire defense case amounts to "AH is a nice guy who treats his friends well and would never shoot a friend like Odin Lloyd".
Bradley shreds that defense.
Shelterdog said:
Every intelligent non lawyer juror in that court room is watching this shit and just saying "I fucking hate lawyers and why the hell can't they just ask him "When did you hear that Lloyd died?'
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't from the United States.dingertater said:Pardon my ignorance here. I have been following this thread closely. I am pretty confused why the prosecution never did a few things.
First, why have they chosen to not put Hernandez on the stand? Getting his story of where he was on the night In question. Why he asked SJ to remove items from the house, etc
Second, why have the co-conspirators not been called?
There seems to be evidence suggesting 3 people picked up OL at his house and hours later he was dead in a park a few miles from AH's house. If they can prove its a he said/he said scenario, isn't it easier to prove joint venture. One of these guys have to have a story. Questioning them separately should help support this possibility.
moly99 said:
It sucks but the alternative is much, much worse. Trial by gossip is not a step in the right direction.
Both sides are afraid to ask him questions.NortheasternPJ said:Any chance our friend BB shows up today?
There is a 1/2 day today, some of which is taken up by voir dire. And tomorrow is the prosecutions last testimony day. BB doesn't really add much thunder, so I can't see why they would order their witnesses that way. But, as always, what do I know.NortheasternPJ said:Any chance our friend BB shows up today?
Too bad for the defense that the trial is located where it is. Anywhere else in the country and all they'd have to do to get AH off is suggest that BB did it.P'tucket said:Both sides are afraid to ask him questions.
norm from cheers said:Bradley on stand now (sans jury) and they are still conducting VD. cameras allowed and streaming
lol.. it was a quick post..maufman said:
I have never seen "voir dire" abbreviated this way before.
dingertater said:Pardon my ignorance here. I have been following this thread closely. I am pretty confused why the prosecution never did a few things.
First, why have they chosen to not put Hernandez on the stand? Getting his story of where he was on the night In question. Why he asked SJ to remove items from the house, etc
Second, why have the co-conspirators not been called?