Aaron Hernandez Trial (Odin Lloyd)

[Shelterdog]

Kraft's memory is pretty bad for a billionaire. His 'what's a chair?' strategy is a classic. Will BB be next?

 
If I were a 70 year old billionaire my memory would be shit due to my daily combo of Mouton-Rothschild and a couple of Ukrainian models.
 
The criminal justice system is infuriating.  The defense keeps trying to get in Hernandez is a nice guy and it seems like the jury isn't going to get to here "actually he's been accused of a double murder and we think that's why he killed Lloyd."

 

[Joshv02]

Briggs asked AH "Why did you lawyer up" -- I hope that wasn't what the prosecution was trying to get him to say...
 
 
Ahh - they wanted him to talk about AH saying he was at a club with OL.  You could tell the prosecution was not happy that veered off in the wrong direction.

 

[Red Averages]

These constant objection/rephrasing/discussions are getting annoying. 

 

[Joshv02]

These constant objection/rephrasing/discussions are getting annoying. 

Some of these defense objections are just making it easier to follow- especially the "leading" right before "he swore on his baby's life."  

 

[Shelterdog]

Some of these defense objections are just making it easier to follow- especially the "leading" right before "he swore on his baby's life."  

 
I'm watching it today and it strikes me that the defense is objecting too much to these moderately leading questions--I think the conventional wisdom is that the juries want witnesses to tell their story and don't like it when lawyers keep them from hearing the story by objecting about weird lawyerly reasons. You screw up the flow of the story a bit, which is good for the defense, but (and I don't have much jury trial experience) the jurors can also tell you're stopping them from hearing what the witness's story.

 

[BrunanskysSlide]

 
I'm watching it today and it strikes me that the defense is objecting too much to these moderately leading questions--I think the conventional wisdom is that the juries want witnesses to tell their story and don't like it when lawyers keep them from hearing the story by objecting about weird lawyerly reasons. You screw up the flow of the story a bit, which is good for the defense, but (and I don't have much jury trial experience) the jurors can also tell you're stopping them from hearing what the witness's story.

I agree. I would possibly be turning on them if I were a juror at this point.  Although Kraft and Brigg were big NAME witnesses, they aren't huge from a new factual standpoint.  To object to every question is just making the jurors miss more time from work without major gains.  It also loses the impact of an objection when it really matters.  Objecting to the lawyering up and smacking down the prosecution for that: good.  Objecting for the 66th time because the question was leading when it will just get asked another way: not so good, IMO.

 

[Red Averages]

Agree with Shelterdog.  Objections to make the prosecution slightly tweak a question and interrupt the flow strikes me as A - annoying and B - you're scared about what the witness has to say.  Neither is helpful.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I'm in court this AM. Keep the details coming!

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

You mean other than the mountain of evidence of premeditation?
Stupidity is not the same thing as lack of premeditation.

That's why I prefaced it with "if he wasn't so dumb". We agree.

 

[Average Reds]

That's why I prefaced it with "if he wasn't so dumb". We agree.

 
My powers of comprehension apparently weren't spectacular last night.  Carry on.

 

[Shelterdog]

I agree. I would possibly be turning on them if I were a juror at this point.  Although Kraft and Brigg were big NAME witnesses, they aren't huge from a new factual standpoint.  To object to every question is just making the jurors miss more time from work without major gains.  It also loses the impact of an objection when it really matters.  Objecting to the lawyering up and smacking down the prosecution for that: good.  Objecting for the 66th time because the question was leading when it will just get asked another way: not so good, IMO.

 
the objection is good although frankly getting that comment in might be worth the smackdown: the jurors might not mention it or consider it but then again they'll remember it.

 

[BrunanskysSlide]

Does the "lawyering up" comment from Brigg open the door for some serious appellate consideration if he's convicted?  The 5th amendment right not being used against a defendant in front of a jury is a huge deal.  Now, the jurors know that the head of security asked AH why he got a lawyer, implicating that AH felt he needed a lawyer quickly after the investigation started and did get one.  The question itself from Brigg casts guilt onto AH solely by the nature of the question, and rightfully so, AH shouldn't have to answer that to Brigg or the jurors.  Now, AH is left with Brigg never telling the jurors what his response was and left not being able to explain why he "lawyered up" so fast, which he shouldn't have to do.  I'm guessing the defense attorneys asked for a mistrial at sidebar which was overruled and the judge told them she would remedy it with an instruction.  But, IMO, the instruction really only serves to highlight the issue for the jurors.  In fact, I would bet at some point in deliberations one of the jurors says, "Well, if he wasn't guilty why did he get a lawyer so fast afterward..."  I hope the attorneys move for a mistrial at the end of the State's case and again after close to preserve the issue. Could be interesting.  

 

[smastroyin]

Is there a 5th amendment problem if the question was asked before Hernandez was detained?

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

If I'm a juror that bit from Brigg doesn't move the needle either way for me. Ive been on the wrong end of an accusation and in my opinion the very first thing you do when you find out you're being investigated, especially if you are innocent, is get a damn lawyer and shut your mouth.

 

[Average Reds]

Does the "lawyering up" comment from Brigg open the door for some serious appellate consideration if he's convicted?  The 5th amendment right not being used against a defendant in front of a jury is a huge deal.  Now, the jurors know that the head of security asked AH why he got a lawyer, implicating that AH felt he needed a lawyer quickly after the investigation started and did get one.  The question itself from Brigg casts guilt onto AH solely by the nature of the question, and rightfully so, AH shouldn't have to answer that to Brigg or the jurors.  Now, AH is left with Brigg never telling the jurors what his response was and left not being able to explain why he "lawyered up" so fast, which he shouldn't have to do.  I'm guessing the defense attorneys asked for a mistrial at sidebar which was overruled and the judge told them she would remedy it with an instruction.  But, IMO, the instruction really only serves to highlight the issue for the jurors.  In fact, I would bet at some point in deliberations one of the jurors says, "Well, if he wasn't guilty why did he get a lawyer so fast afterward..."  I hope the attorneys move for a mistrial at the end of the State's case and again after close to preserve the issue. Could be interesting.  

 
Why do you hope that?  AH is a murderer who deserves to die in prison.

 

[Average Reds]

Also, I would add that I don't see the issue.  Brigg was asked a question and answered it truthfully.  I would assume that AH's lawyers could object and get it stricken from the record if they wanted.  I would also assume that instructions from the judge will correct what is clearly a minor infraction to the extent it's anything at all.
 
But more to the point, AH is on trial for murder.  The jurors know precisely why he needed to lawyer up and don't need his explanation.

 

[BrunanskysSlide]

 
Why do you hope that?  AH is a murderer who deserves to die in prison.

 
Sorry, that was meant more in terms of hoping for effective counsel as opposed to "Yay, I hope AH gets off and starts at TE next year!!!11!!..."

 

[Shelterdog]

Is there a 5th amendment problem if the question was asked before Hernandez was detained?

 
It's not likely--it's pretty hard for questions by your private employer to violate your 5th amendment rights. 

 

[Average Reds]

 
Sorry, that was meant more in terms of hoping for effective counsel as opposed to "Yay, I hope AH gets off and starts at TE next year!!!11!!..."

 
I figured as much.  Just awkward phrasing.
 
And I understand the notion that process is important to the credibility of the trial itself.  I just don't see that specific issue as being critical.

 

[smastroyin]

I could see it being more of a mistrial opportunity if the prosecutor had said "as head of security, was it unusual to you that AH got a lawyer so quickly?" or something.

Funny though that it essentially mirrors the comments here in the thread before he was held. I'll grant that it's too bad the conventional wisdom is that only guilty people need lawyers.

 

[BrunanskysSlide]

 
I figured as much.  Just awkward phrasing.
 
And I understand the notion that process is important to the credibility of the trial itself.  I just don't see that specific issue as being critical.

 
I also agree that it likely won't turn into much, if anything at all.   I'm guessing the judge told the defense attys the same thing as your post above at sidebar.  It's always interesting to me that anything can happen at trial.  I'm guessing that when the prosecutors were prepping Brigg they said, "Listen, you can't mention your question about lawyerijng up, we don't want to risk a mistrial."  And it still happened.  Sometimes all the defense can hope for with so many bad facts is that some good appellate issue pops up, that way the prosecution may offer something better during the appeal so they don't risk spending all the time and money to do it all over again. 

 

[Rovin Romine]

The overall issue can result in a mistrial/issue on appeal. The instance here was minor and cured with an instruction. If AH was my client I'd tell him it was a 1% chance on appeal (in FL or NY or Fed.)

 

[Joshv02]

The prosecution wasn't "smacked down."  It was pretty obvious that they didn't mean for him to say that (they tried to move on quickly, then after the sidebar they got the witness to say what they clearly wanted him to say) but without leading someone its hard to constrain what they say.  There were multiple instructions, too;  not just one.  Hard to see that being a big deal.  But, Sultan and Fee are obviously thorough, they timely objected, and I'm sure they will preserve everything.

 

[Joshv02]

Just looking at these questions of OL friend - its really hard to ask questions when you are constrained by really hard to follow rules.  OL's friend can't talk about hearsay, even though of course that is what you'd do naturally ("OL told me... I saw something written...").
 
When did you learn ... "I had a call from his sister asking..." (Judge: Objection, sustained.)  I mean, people don't talk this way.  So getting them to say what you want to say while not saying what they are not allowed to say is really hard, and comes across as weird and somewhat antiseptic.  

 

[knuck]

Why can't he say the sister called him to tell him that her brother had died?

 

[Rovin Romine]

Just looking at these questions of OL friend - its really hard to ask questions when you are constrained by really hard to follow rules.  OL's friend can't talk about hearsay, even though of course that is what you'd do naturally ("OL told me... I saw something written...").
 
When did you learn ... "I had a call from his sister asking..." (Judge: Objection, sustained.)  I mean, people don't talk this way.  So getting them to say what you want to say while not saying what they are not allowed to say is really hard, and comes across as weird and somewhat antiseptic.  

Which is why you practice with key inexperienced civilian witnesses before they take the stand.

 

[Shelterdog]

Just looking at these questions of OL friend - its really hard to ask questions when you are constrained by really hard to follow rules.  OL's friend can't talk about hearsay, even though of course that is what you'd do naturally ("OL told me... I saw something written...").
 
When did you learn ... "I had a call from his sister asking..." (Judge: Objection, sustained.)  I mean, people don't talk this way.  So getting them to say what you want to say while not saying what they are not allowed to say is really hard, and comes across as weird and somewhat antiseptic.  

 
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?'

 

[Joshv02]

Which is why you practice with key inexperienced civilian witnesses before they take the stand.

Yeah, but this is like the 60th witness, who is just a guy, and who is now talking about the two sandwich bags of "doobies".  The prosecution investigator talked to him recently, I'm sure, but they aren't taking a day to go over what he can and what he can't say.  Plus, what can this guy remember with all the pencil sized doobies

 

[knuck]

 
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?'

 
This is my thought exactly.

 

[Joshv02]

 
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?'

Yeah, it feels idiotic.  You can tell how pissed the witness was getting, too. I thought he was going to explode.

 

[soxfan121]

 
Yup, Mark Briggs is on the stand now.

 
I have no idea how Briggs still has a job. None. He must have pictures or something because he's proven to be dangerously incompetent at some of the key aspects of his job - background checks, facility security, "intelligence", etc.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

The overall issue can result in a mistrial/issue on appeal. The instance here was minor and cured with an instruction. If AH was my client I'd tell him it was a 1% chance on appeal (in FL or NY or Fed.)

 
Do you have to ask for a mistrial to preserve an appeal on the issue?
 
I think having a prosecution witness state the client lawyered up seems significant, although I would expect it depends on how prejudicial it was in terms of the defense.  I don't know the facts here, but if the timeline were the defendant was claiming he wasn't aware of fact X at moment Y, and it is likely that nobody would think to need a lawyer until knowing fact X, then the fact that he consulted with a lawyer at moment Y seems like it would be prejudicial.  But, of course, only if it's unconstitutional to elicit that a defendant contacted a lawyer in order to show timing or notice.  I assume it is, but don't know.

 

[hittery]

I believe at this point that the defense is simply preserving as much as they can for appeal. I know a lot can happen between now and the close of evidence, but this is a really strong case for the state, much stronger than I had even initially thought.

I do wonder, however, about the state's reasoning for calling Kraft. What good does it do to show that Aaron professed his innocence? Even if the time of the crime wasn't known, it wouldn't be that unreasonable for someone who was out clubbing to say, "well, it wasn't me and I can prove to you I was out." And of course he would lie about being innocent. The guy was making millions and wanted to keep it that way as long as he could.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

I believe at this point that the defense is simply preserving as much as they can for appeal. I know a lot can happen between now and the close of evidence, but this is a really strong case for the state, much stronger than I had even initially thought.

I do wonder, however, about the state's reasoning for calling Kraft. What good does it do to show that Aaron professed his innocence? Even if the time of the crime wasn't known, it wouldn't be that unreasonable for someone who was out clubbing to say, "well, it wasn't me and I can prove to you I was out." And of course he would lie about being innocent. The guy was making millions and wanted to keep it that way as long as he could.

 
Maybe the prosecution called him simply because Kraft apparently asked Hernandez if he was involved, and that tends to suggest that Kraft entertained the idea that Hernandez might be guilty.  It's minor on top of the evidence already presented, but Kraft is a local hero and a well respected community figure -- if he entertained suspicions about Hernandez, then the implication is that entertaining suspicions about Hernandez was a thing that by proxy reasonable people would and should have done immediately after the murder. Not a big point, but maybe has some minor impact.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

 
Maybe the prosecution called him simply because Kraft apparently asked Hernandez if he was involved, and that tends to suggest that Kraft entertained the idea that Hernandez might be guilty.  It's minor on top of the evidence already presented, but Kraft is a local hero and a well respected community figure -- if he entertained suspicions about Hernandez, then the implication is that entertaining suspicions about Hernandez was a thing that by proxy reasonable people would and should have done immediately after the murder. Not a big point, but maybe has some minor impact.

 
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. 

 

[Joshv02]

I believe at this point that the defense is simply preserving as much as they can for appeal. I know a lot can happen between now and the close of evidence, but this is a really strong case for the state, much stronger than I had even initially thought.

I do wonder, however, about the state's reasoning for calling Kraft. What good does it do to show that Aaron professed his innocence? Even if the time of the crime wasn't known, it wouldn't be that unreasonable for someone who was out clubbing to say, "well, it wasn't me and I can prove to you I was out." And of course he would lie about being innocent. The guy was making millions and wanted to keep it that way as long as he could.

Yeah, Fraga's tweets say that the defense expects to rest early next week, and prosecution by this Thursday.  Since the intervening Friday is Good Friday, I had expected the judge to give jurors the day off, but either way it gives us no more than a 3-4 day defense after a multi-week, methodical prosecution.  

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Don't forget the part where the Defense asks the judge to dismiss the case since the Prosecution didn't meet it's burden which is quickly tossed aside.
 
I was actually on a case where this happened and they won. It was a Legal Malpractice case and the dumbass didn't bring anyone up on the stand on the Prosecution's side to state it was actually malpractice. So as a jury we had no way to actually rule on it since no expert actually told us it was. I'm assuming he ended up in a legal malpractice case, based upon this legal malpractice case which he committed blatant malpractice.)

 

[Shelterdog]

 
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. 

 
I think they were also hoping to expand a little more on "the told me he knew he was elsewhere at the exact moment someone was killed" angle but Kraft was being pretty circumspect and the Judge-perhaps particularly eager to avoid reversible error after a long, methodical case had been put in--was running a particularly tight ship.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Looks like the prosecution was going down the route of "AH Told you he was a club" etc. etc. they had a sidebar, then it was over. No doubt the judge cut them off

 

[crystalline]

I believe at this point that the defense is simply preserving as much as they can for appeal. I know a lot can happen between now and the close of evidence, but this is a really strong case for the state, much stronger than I had even initially thought.

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

The second level -- trying it to the appellate court -- is where Rankin and Sultan have been particularly successful.

 

[Joshv02]

The reporters at the trial are now saying that the defense will start -- and end -- on Monday.  Friday will be the day they hash our the jury instructions (charge), so I'd expect the jurors get the holiday off.

 

[soxfan121]

The reporters at the trial are now saying that the defense will start -- and end -- on Monday.  Friday will be the day they hash our the jury instructions (charge), so I'd expect the jurors get the holiday off.

 
What? So Sultan & Rankin think they've got this won, now or on appeal?

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

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
 

For us IANALs in the crowd, if they were to succeed at getting another trial, it seems like the trial for the double murder would take place between this and any subsequent retrial for the OL shooting.  Does the double get pushed out?  Would having held the trial for the double murder before the retrial affect the admissibility of those events in the retrial?

 

[joe dokes]

 
What? So Sultan & Rankin think they've got this won, now or on appeal?

 
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.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Outside of them poking holes in the handling of the crime scene, I'm not sure what else they can bring to the table. 

 

[Steve Dillard]

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]

 
What? So Sultan & Rankin think they've got this won, now or on appeal?

 
No.  They're going to rest on a limited case and hope they can successfully argue that the prosecutors didn't actually meet their burden.  They know they have a horrendous uphill battle.

 

[BrunanskysSlide]

 
What? So Sultan & Rankin think they've got this won, now or on appeal?

 
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.  

 

[soxfan121]

 
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.

 
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. 

 

[steveluck7]

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?
 
edit: it looks like they will be calling at witnesses so my question is moot