Aaron Hernandez Trial (Odin Lloyd)
- Thread starter Rovin Romine
- Start date
- Status
steveluck7 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.
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:
Tomorrow morning should be interesting with the voir dire of Alexander Bradley on tap. The jury is being told to come an hour later (9:30 am) to keep them from waiting too long. This is the guy who is suing AH for shooting him in the face who is a pretty unsavory character himself.
soxfan121 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.
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:
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:
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:
In miniature this tactic also works well when dealing with a certain subset of expert and tangential witnesses. Although you have to be very very careful not to overplay it (suggesting the witness is irrelevant and not worthy of anything more than your three questions.
Shelterdog 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.
-Do you have any idea when this will end?
-What kind of outcomes are possible? Is there a likely scenario coming up? (basically, what i read here is that everything seems possible..)
-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.]
-What kind of outcomes are possible? Is there a likely scenario coming up? (basically, what i read here is that everything seems possible..)
-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.]
BrunanskysSlide said:
Don't forget: The state doesn't have to prove Hernandez was the actual murderer here. With joint venture, he's toast as long as the jurors believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he was there and participated. I personally think there's been suficcient evidence produced in court to convict, leaving out all we know outside of it.
joe dokes 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.)
BrunanskysSlide said:
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:
It's *possible* that the defense can win an acquittal on all charges. It's also possible that the defense can convince one juror to "stick with their guns" (wrong metaphor perhaps) and hang the jury (resulting in a retrial).
I think, based on my understanding of what's actually in front of the jury, that the state has a pretty well fleshed out and credible timeline. They have motive in the OL knows/bugging text (although we don't know exactly what it is). They have testimony that AH/OL weren't bosom buddies or even friends of long standing. They ahve premeditation in taking the gun before the shooting, and AH hectoring Wallace and Ortiz to get in place. They have the pickup of OL from his house by AH. They have the drive to AH's neighborhood. They have the time of the shooting down to within 5 minutes. The actual shooting details show OL was killed by someone in AH's car, more or less execution style. They have AH at his house a few minutes after that, getting out of the car with a gun. They have a good explanation to what happened to the gun (SJ dumped it). They have post-shooting demeanor evidence that further argues AH was involved - lying to Kraft, destruction of the phone, burner phones, payoffs to Wallace/Ortiz/T.Singleton, convos urging people not to talk, the overall frenetic phone activity among the key players in this.
Most importantly, nothing in the slew of evidence seems inconsistent with the state's theory. At least, I haven't seen anything. No leads seem to have been dropped, and there are no other suspects. No physical evidence points to any other conclusion.
On the soft issues, AH does not exactly smell like a rose. Right now it's not damning, but I don't see a portrayal of AH as someone who categorically couldn't or wouldn't do these things. Which may not matter since there's nearly no way out of the scenario the state's established.
Jnai said:
That's why it's a random crazy theory.
And hey, skeptical members of the jury, the state didn't establish that AH only did drugs at home - and if they're going to say that it's their burden. Plus they could have been there to play with guns. We know SJ didn't like guns in the house. And whatever you believe about her hiding the contraband weed box, that certainly seems credible.
Could it have reasonably happened? If so, that's reasonable doubt. Is it more reasonable than a 40 mil player, a brand new father, randomly shooting his weed smoking buddy/quasi-brother-in-law practically in his back yard? Yeah, it is.
BTW - I hope it's clear I'm just adopting the argument to flesh it out. There are other problems with it that the prosecution could get into, which I outlined in the post above. I don't have any really good random crazy theories in my head re: this case. But the testimony isn't over yet. Maybe there will be something about OL and Wallace being gay lovers or in some kind of love triangle or owing each other money or previously fighting or something. That sort of thing - built on one line of testimony from one witness, is more of what I'm getting at. Something whacky, not completely implausible, and basically impossible for the state to refute because it wasn't really on their radar.
Keeping with the football metaphors, you could call it a "Hail Mary."
soxfan121 said:
The state's case is not ironclad, but very few cases are. And they have more than met their burden relative to reasonable doubt. Hell, in the hands of a crackerjack prosecutor, Hernandez could be convicted based on nothing more than a compelling summary of the testimony of Shayanna Jenkins. The combination of known facts and outrageous fabrications she demonstrated on the stand should leave little doubt in the minds of jurors that AH is guilty. (Of course, I have no idea if the prosecutors here have it in them to give a Vincent Bugliosi close.)
Are the odds of conviction 100%? Of course not. But they are strong now and will go higher with merely a competent performance at the close.
As to the defense strategy, if they plan to rest without calling a witness (which appears to be what they will do) it tells me that the only witnesses who could be called are so unreliable that the risk of putting anyone on the stand is too great. The performance of Shayanna Jenkins convinces me that this is what they are thinking.
I should also say that in a case where the defense has hinted at a character argument ("AH is not the type to do something like this" or "AH has no motive for this crime") the jury will want to hear from the defendant himself. Obviously they understand his right not to testify and they will hear the instruction telling them not to take it into consideration, but let's be clear: they will take it into consideration. And given the overwhelming examples of consciousness of guilt that have been presented at trial, lack of testimony from AH will hurt him.
I expect a conviction and I expect it pretty quickly. If we don't hear a verdict within a couple of days, it tells me that the jury is a risk of being hung. And that's really the risk for the state right now. It's not an overwhelming risk, but it's not insignificant either.
I will be completely shocked if AH is found not guilty.
Edit: could have saved myself the time if I had seen RR's posts....
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
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
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.
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.
norm from cheers 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:
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.
It seems like they don't need Bradley given the case already built, but I'm personally curious as to what he has to say.
Stupid question, if his testimony were essentially "oh yeah Aaron tried to get me to hush up about the double homicide too" (basic reinforcement of motive) how does that affect the other case, etc.
Obviously purely a hypothetical, I have no idea what Bradley's story is.
Stupid question, if his testimony were essentially "oh yeah Aaron tried to get me to hush up about the double homicide too" (basic reinforcement of motive) how does that affect the other case, etc.
Obviously purely a hypothetical, I have no idea what Bradley's story is.
DennyDoyle'sBoil 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.
Rovin Romine 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?
Unless the DA has something really important beyond the access to guns that they want to get out through Bradley's testimony, that motion reads like pretty good advice to me. The Director of Security for the Patriots already stepped in it once during the prosecution's case; they think they're going to have more control over Bradley?
Average Reds 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!
I agree - look for my post above.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
What I didn't say is that the prosecution has the right to call 100 witnesses to say the same thing, but that the judge can limit that based on volume alone. Also the judge can limit it based on volume and risk of tainting the jury. (But all the judge has to do is read Bradley the riot act re: his testimony.)
***
BTW, if I'm the State, before I rest my case, I'd ask about limitations of the Defenses' closing arguments, especially the no-motive argument. Depending on the ruling as to those limitations, I'd ask to recall witnesses and present other, currently excluded information. 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.
Rovin Romine 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.
Kull said:
Oh - as things are now he's not going to be allowed to say that. (The prosecution has already moved to have this testimony in and it has been denied.)
I was trying to say that if I were prosecuting, I'd get the judge to commit to just what the defense can and cannot argue in their closing re: lack of motive/AH is a nice guy. Depending on what the judge says, the prosecution could then move (again) to allow the prior shooting thing in. Usually the defense does not have to turn their cards over, but I think the prosecution can make it clear that they're worried about that line of argument (lack of motive/nice guy) being used. I don't think the jury ultimately hears about the prior shooting, but raising the issue now may limit the defense's latitude.
We'll have to see what the defense does. They're calling at least one witness. Forensic or character? Probably a gun expert of their own. Their best chance is to take the gun out of AH's hand, or confuse the issue. Possibly a PCP expert for the Wallace flipped out defense? Has there been any reporting on this?
OJ says hi from his jail cell, though Cellmark provided one of the foundations for keeping him out on the first go round.
The minimalist approach makes sense. Your own witnesses have a far greater capacity to do you harm than the opposition's. precisely because you called them.
The pivotal question will be whether these experts can contribute meaningfully to reasonable doubt, or instead will sink the ship by insulting the jury's intelligence.
The minimalist approach makes sense. Your own witnesses have a far greater capacity to do you harm than the opposition's. precisely because you called them.
The pivotal question will be whether these experts can contribute meaningfully to reasonable doubt, or instead will sink the ship by insulting the jury's intelligence.
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.
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.
Man, between 4th grade civics and Law & Order, you'd think that first question would have been covered.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't from the United States.dingertater said:
The short answer is that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives AH the right not testify, and gives his co-conspirators the right not to testify unless they are immunized from prosecution, which the DA doesn't seem inclined to do. If you want a longer answer, Google is your friend -- there's a ton of information out there about the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.
moly99 said:
I'm not sure it is. There are all sorts of legal regimes with different rules of evidence and it's a pretty good question as to whether the results you get in say, Sweden, or Germany, (or in some family courts, or in an administrative court in the US not guided by the FRE, or in some arbitrations) are demonstrably worse than regimes where hearsay is strictly enforced.
I wonder if all the prosecution wants to get out of the Avery Bradley testimony is that he and AH have gotten guns together in the past, it was not hard, and perhaps to shed some insight into thug life a bit.
Candidly, the smoking gun could be the shock value of his face and the unspoken knowledge by all in the room that AH was the one to cause it. The Jury will have that seed planted even if it never is discussed in deliberation. The theory of the Defense that AH is a great loyal and even generous friend would not "hold water" IMHO
Edit: Judge clears room of public while Bradley questioned:
Wild About Trial @WildAboutTrial
Garsh is closing the court to the public! We are all being asked to leave for voir dire. Wow.
Second Edit: Tim Conlon @timothyconlon 21m21 minutes ago
Want to see a short concise answer to direct questions? Belichick rumored to be testifying in Hernandez today.
fake edit: I sprained my back and am pretty much relegated to resting the back.. no work this week and thus, my life is glued to this trial right now
Candidly, the smoking gun could be the shock value of his face and the unspoken knowledge by all in the room that AH was the one to cause it. The Jury will have that seed planted even if it never is discussed in deliberation. The theory of the Defense that AH is a great loyal and even generous friend would not "hold water" IMHO
Edit: Judge clears room of public while Bradley questioned:
Wild About Trial @WildAboutTrial
Garsh is closing the court to the public! We are all being asked to leave for voir dire. Wow.
Second Edit: Tim Conlon @timothyconlon 21m21 minutes ago
Want to see a short concise answer to direct questions? Belichick rumored to be testifying in Hernandez today.
fake edit: I sprained my back and am pretty much relegated to resting the back.. no work this week and thus, my life is glued to this trial right now
Bradley on stand now (sans jury) and they are still conducting VD. cameras allowed and streaming
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:
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:
lol.. it was a quick post..maufman said:
Bradley suggesting the box SJ took out was a small safe with a handgun/bullets and misc. it was sometimes kept in the basement closet.
dingertater said:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment
Why won't they call AH?
Because 'MURICA!!!
When I was a very young PD, I saw a newly hired prosecutor try to call the defendant as a witness. (We had all been sort of wondering why the case was going to trial, since it didn't seem the state had any witnesses present to call, but whatever.)
There was this awful pained silence in the courtroom. Some of the cops who were waiting on other cases winced and grimaced. I think the court reporter threw up her hands. I realized everyone was looking at me, so I lamely rolled out an "Um. . .objection?"
Yeah, I don't understand it either. It was awhile ago, so the details are fuzzy. (I don't even remember my client.) Just one of those bizarre things. I think the prosecutor thought she could call the defendant to establish neutral background information - and under certain circumstance one can, say to establish the height of the defendant, or show a tattoo or something (basically stuff that's not "testimony." She wanted far more than that though.
There was this awful pained silence in the courtroom. Some of the cops who were waiting on other cases winced and grimaced. I think the court reporter threw up her hands. I realized everyone was looking at me, so I lamely rolled out an "Um. . .objection?"
Yeah, I don't understand it either. It was awhile ago, so the details are fuzzy. (I don't even remember my client.) Just one of those bizarre things. I think the prosecutor thought she could call the defendant to establish neutral background information - and under certain circumstance one can, say to establish the height of the defendant, or show a tattoo or something (basically stuff that's not "testimony." She wanted far more than that though.
Jury can hear box/safe seen in basement..can say guns/ cash/weed were kept in there. gun seen in hotel (feb 13') allowed in.. showing ability to acquire weapons in Florida.
Bradley can say AH admitted he had issues trusting people, can't speak about AH thinking he was being tailed by police.
I have to admit, I was expecting Flava Flav when Bradley was on stand.. He seems somewhat calm and articulate... I guess more believable than I would have thought.
Bradley can say AH admitted he had issues trusting people, can't speak about AH thinking he was being tailed by police.
I have to admit, I was expecting Flava Flav when Bradley was on stand.. He seems somewhat calm and articulate... I guess more believable than I would have thought.
Box testimony appears to come in.
Gun in hotel in FL comes in.
Paranoia testimony comes in -- AH told Bradley he had a hard time trusting people, but no testimony re "I'm being tailed by a helicopter and law enforcement!" and "they are bugging my iPhone!"
Bradley's attorney is told to make sure that the witness doesn't go past what he is allowed -- no blurting things out. He'll be in contempt if he does so.
Gun in hotel in FL comes in.
Paranoia testimony comes in -- AH told Bradley he had a hard time trusting people, but no testimony re "I'm being tailed by a helicopter and law enforcement!" and "they are bugging my iPhone!"
Bradley's attorney is told to make sure that the witness doesn't go past what he is allowed -- no blurting things out. He'll be in contempt if he does so.
- Status