Aaron Hernandez Trial (Odin Lloyd)

Status
Not open for further replies.

DaughtersofDougMirabelli

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2006
3,016
I'm hearing a lot of chirping from friends and Twitter that think he'll walk*. What do the experts here think?
 
edit: *Not walk as in be free because he's still on trial for the double homicide, but be innocent in this case.
 

88 MVP

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 25, 2007
481
WNY
I had to leave the stream after the prosecution closed. Will they charge and give the case to the jury this afternoon?
 

PeaceSignMoose

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2006
1,745
Boston
DaughtersofDougMirabelli said:
I'm hearing a lot of chirping from friends and Twitter that think he'll walk*. What do the experts here think?
 
edit: *Not walk as in be free because he's still on trial for the double homicide, but be innocent in this case.
 
Not one of the experts, but I really don't think so.  Don't forget the "essentially a slam dunk" gun charges against him here that at the very least, even assuming a disaster situation for the prosecution in the murder charge, should keep him out of free society for a long, long time.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
34,589
Southwestern CT
DaughtersofDougMirabelli said:
I'm hearing a lot of chirping from friends and Twitter that think he'll walk*. What do the experts here think?
 
edit: *Not walk as in be free because he's still on trial for the double homicide, but be innocent in this case.
 
I've said it before, but if by "walk" you mean a straight acquittal, I think not.  If you mean a hung jury, anything's possible.  (But still unlikely.)
 
I have not watched any of the trial, but I have followed it in the press (and enjoyed the commentary here) and I really think that people are being swayed by a combination of "the OJ factor" and the "Law and Order" factor.
 
Cutting to the chase, the racial dynamics and police/prosecutorial misconduct that dominated the OJ trial simply aren't relevant to this case and will not play into the decision.  OJ wasn't acquitted because of his celebrity, he was acquitted because the three lead detectives either committed perjury or were found to have been "reckless with the truth" (Judge Ito's words) as a matter of law.  The forensic pathologist lied on the stand and was caught by Barry Scheck (numerous times) in a near "Perry Mason moment."  By the end of the case, the jury was sick of it all and essentially nullified as an FU to the prosecution.  None of that matters here.
 
The "Law and Order" factor is this notion of confusing "reasonable doubt" with "beyond the shadow of a doubt."  We'll never be able to prove to a 100% certainty that AH is guilty.  But given the evidence, it's just not reasonable to find otherwise and I'm shocked that anyone who has followed the trial would think so.
 

jcd0805

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
3,410
Florida
I cannot foresee any way he walks, I will be stunned.  Of course I was stunned by the Casey Anthony verdict so what do I know. 
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
DaughtersofDougMirabelli said:
I'm hearing a lot of chirping from friends and Twitter that think he'll walk*. What do the experts here think?
 
edit: *Not walk as in be free because he's still on trial for the double homicide, but be innocent in this case.
 
I think a lot of people who have not served on juries, and who are not lawyers think it should work like Law and Order, and there was no moment here of Sam Waterson badgering a witness into telling the whole story.  Some people think that is necessary to remove "Reasonable doubt."  
 
The only question I have is the question of whether they really met burden for Murder 1 and that's the only thing the jury is going to have a question about and might lead to a hung jury.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,635
Mid-surburbia
Rovin Romine said:
 
I'm going to say "much weaker."  The prosecution relied heavily on the video to show AH's demeanor before and after the shooting, which is central to their argument about joint venture.   Also, the vid shows AH with gun in hand and AH's exact arrival time at the house.  
 
Without the vid, AH theoretically has a "they dropped me off earlier that night" defense.   Sure his DNA and prints are in the car - he left them there earlier.  (The joint at the murder scene is harder to explain but doable.) 
 
The state could still prosecute though.  
 
That's sort of how I felt reading the prosecution's close.  As a juror, I would have listened to a "wrong place, wrong time, didn't know what was going to happen" defense that tried to shift it onto W/O, but the day-after home footage just nukes that entirely.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Average Reds said:
 
I've said it before, but if by "walk" you mean a straight acquittal, I think not.  If you mean a hung jury, anything's possible.  (But still unlikely.)
 
At the very least, he is unequivocally guilty on the gun charges and won't "walk" because that is a no-doubt, no-brainer for the jury. 
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
19,063
Miami (oh, Miami!)
DaughtersofDougMirabelli said:
I'm hearing a lot of chirping from friends and Twitter that think he'll walk*. What do the experts here think?
 
edit: *Not walk as in be free because he's still on trial for the double homicide, but be innocent in this case.
 
Not to punt, but it depends on the final version of the jury instructions and what he's actually changed with (if there are any lesser included crimes).  
 
I think the state has made an excellent showing.  I believe AH arranged for the killing of OL to happen, was there, and likely pulled the trigger himself.  
 
I don't have any reasonable doubts as to that.  I don't believe a police conspiracy or that evidence was fabricated or that AH was framed.  The "W/O flipped out/acted independently" defense seems to have been the most viable alternative scenario/reasonable doubt.  It would have let AH be present, but not have planned the killing.  However, I think the prosecution showed that defense to be garbage - the video of AH's actions afterward (smoothies by the pool, AH leaving his 8mo. old with Wallace and Ortiz!)  There's no reaction which corroborates the flip out scenario.  Also, that lack of reaction makes the SJ payoff to Wallace more in the nature of joint venture, instead of "get the crazy guy out of town").  Also, that lack of reaction colors my view of AH's actions leading up to the murder (pushing to make sure OL was in that industrial park at 3am).  In short, I don't believe the W/O flipped out scenario is reasonable.  It does not hang together without being grossly contradicted by other more solid facts.   Therefore, I'm left with AH being responsible under joint venture - regardless of who pulled the trigger, or when AH or W/O formed the intent to kill.  I can't think of another reasonable doubt I might have.  So I'm left with guilt. 
 
However, the jury instructions contain very specific language that the jury will have to reconcile with their view of the facts.  (Hence, my surprise that neither side spent time on the actual instructions and language and how they interact with the facts - unless, of course, it was a tactical choice not to call attention to a problem or weakness.)  It's possible that there is something in those instructions that the jury won't be able to get around, even if they believe AH was somehow involved.  That something could well be what an individual juror considers to be reasonable doubt (a holdout resulting in a hung jury.) 
 
I've listened to 15% of the testimony, if that, and only through audio in the background.  I've also looked at the model jury instructions.  I'd be beginning the deliberation with "guilty," but I'd be open to arguments otherwise.  Mostly because I can't formulate a reasonable doubt as to the overall scenario, and I'm comfortable with the inferences I'd draw.  (But keep in mind I have odd experience.)  Keep in mind that I completely missed some important things.  For example, I adopted the W/O flip out scenario as a possible defense without knowing about the smoothies and AH's daughter being left with W/O at points after the killing.  So perhaps the jury knows something we don't - cutting either for or against guilt.
 
Anyway, with those caveats, I'd be very very surprised if AH was acquitted.  I'd be sort of suprised if there was a hung jury (you just never know.)  I wouldn't be surprised at all if AH was convicted on a lesser (M2 or Inv. Manslaughter if it's on the table) or found guilty of all charges. 
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
19,063
Miami (oh, Miami!)
JimBoSox9 said:
 
That's sort of how I felt reading the prosecution's close.  As a juror, I would have listened to a "wrong place, wrong time, didn't know what was going to happen" defense that tried to shift it onto W/O, but the day-after home footage just nukes that entirely.
 
Yep. I agree.   Also, perfect verb choice.  And it reverberates in other ways, making the pre-planning/Wallace payoff/SJ destruction of evidence that much worse. 
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
PeaceSignMoose said:
https://twitter.com/TedDanielFOX25/status/585494669108314112

link to tweet
 
So, what happens?  Does Garsh strike that part from the record?

It's not the record that would have me worried. If the judge is really bothered by this, he calls them in, reiterates that closing argument is not evidence, and then says that in this respect the lawyer erred.

Which is a cock punch. Not to say it would be anything close to game changing in this case, but you clearly don't want it to happen. Which is among the reasons you don't get up there and wing the closing.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
19,063
Miami (oh, Miami!)
dcmissle said:
It's not the record that would have me worried. If the judge is really bothered by this, he calls them in, reiterates that closing argument is not evidence, and then says that in this respect the lawyer erred.

Which is a cock punch. Not to say it would be anything close to game changing in this case, but you clearly don't want it to happen. Which is among the reasons you don't get up there and wing the closing.
 
Yeah.  In a close case, it can hurt you.  In a case that's not close, you don't need to do it.  Ergo, it should never happen.  It does sometimes though - people actually forget what was put into evidence and what wasn't.
 
If you're closing after the other party does this, it's pure gold to get that kind of instruction from the judge before you close.  Then *in* your close, you have a perfect example of overreaching/railroading/jumping to conclusions, etc.  (I've never personally gotten a "between closes" instruction for this sort of thing.  Usually judge will say I can just address it in my closing and allows extra time to do so.  You can make the same points, but without that additional air of authority from the judge.)
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
Did this take place? I started at the inference instruction, and the instruction about the closing not being evidence didn't mention what the prosecution did or didn't do. (But, again, I was interrupted and failed to hear what was right after that.)
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
19,063
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Listening to the instructions - I always wonder about "reminding the jury that they cannot remember (this specific piece of evidence) because it's not part of the record.  Sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't. 
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
19,063
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Joshv02 said:
Did this take place? I started at the inference instruction, and the instruction about the closing not being evidence didn't mention what the prosecution did or didn't do. (But, again, I was interrupted and failed to hear what was right after that.)
 
I haven't heard it yet. 
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
22,962
The 718
knuck said:
Are these instructions pretty standard? Or does it vary by judge?
 
This was addressed upthread.  Most is boilerplate, but there are things unique to many cases that require custom-crafted instructions.  The attorneys for both sides submit proposed instructions to the judge, who ultimately decides.
 
I don't think the media give enough importance to jury instructions when they cover big trials.  They are crucial, and a good/bad one can move the needle on a case, or present an issue on appeal.
 

Kevin Youkulele

wishes Claude Makelele was a Red Sox
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2006
6,514
San Diego
OilCanShotTupac said:
 
This was addressed upthread.  Most is boilerplate, but there are things unique to many cases that require custom-crafted instructions.  The attorneys for both sides submit proposed instructions to the judge, who ultimately decides.
 
I don't think the media give enough importance to jury instructions when they cover big trials.  They are crucial, and a good/bad one can move the needle on a case, or present an issue on appeal.
I certainly agree that they make a difference, although my impression is that they have to be "really bad wrong" to be an appealable issue--like, showing that the instruction got the law wrong and it affected the outcome, i.e., the evidence would not have led to a conviction if the right instruction had been given (or at least the correct instruction could have caused the jury to find reasonable doubt in a way that was foreclosed by the bad instruction).  Most judges are competent enough to avoid this kind of screwup I think. Short of leaving out the definition of reasonable doubt or missing an element of the case, it is hard to win on this kind of theory on appeal.
 

jcd0805

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
3,410
Florida
Can't watch right now-does the jury have the case now? How long does everyone give it until a verdict is reached? I say tomorrow afternoon.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
22,962
The 718
Kevin Youkulele said:
I certainly agree that they make a difference, although my impression is that they have to be "really bad wrong" to be an appealable issue--like, showing that the instruction got the law wrong and it affected the outcome, i.e., the evidence would not have led to a conviction if the right instruction had been given (or at least the correct instruction could have caused the jury to find reasonable doubt in a way that was foreclosed by the bad instruction).  Most judges are competent enough to avoid this kind of screwup I think. Short of leaving out the definition of reasonable doubt or missing an element of the case, it is hard to win on this kind of theory on appeal.
 
I agree that it's rare - but it can happen. My point, really, was that the court and the attorneys for both sides  spend a lot of time and effort on the instructions, and the inclusion/omission of a certain instruction, or its wording, can affect the jury – but I don't think this gets a lot of discussion when trials are publicized,  And a lot of people don't know that much about it.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
19,063
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Alternate jurors are going to be dismissed/selected.  They may be interviewed by the media if they wish to be.  FWIW, I have found little or no predictive value in what an alternate juror says they would have voted.  (I don't even bother to ask that anymore.)  I do find them useful insofar as I (or trial partner/intern) can ask what they found interesting, how they reacted to specific pieces of evidence or argument, if there was something they wish we did (and didn't do), etc.   
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
Average Reds said:
 
Don't keep those of us who can't watch hanging ...
I just watched some of the instructions and didn't hear that part. The guys twitter did not provide an update, so I don't know.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
17,554
Between this and the Marathon trial has there ever been two more public trials for murder gojng on at once? Especially in one city.
 

bosoxsue

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 16, 2001
1,728
NortheasternPJ said:
Between this and the Marathon trial has there ever been two more public trials for murder gojng on at once? Especially in one city.
 
I found it interesting that both attorneys in their closing arguments played up the youth of their clients. That kind of thing, trying to excuse these actions because "he was just a kid," I think they might find it doesn't go the way they hoped. 
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
22,962
The 718
bosoxsue said:
 
I found it interesting that both attorneys in their closing arguments played up the youth of their clients. That kind of thing, trying to excuse these actions because "he was just a kid," I think they might find it doesn't go the way they hoped. 
 
 Sometimes, you got nothin'.
 

PeaceSignMoose

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2006
1,745
Boston
Average Reds said:
 
Don't keep those of us who can't watch hanging ...
Quoted it on a previous page. I'm mobile at this point. It was a tweet about improper facts coming from McCauley regarding the gun residue not being on CO.
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
PeaceSignMoose said:
Quoted it on a previous page. I'm mobile at this point. It was a tweet about improper facts coming from McCauley regarding the gun residue not being on CO.
Right, but no one who listened to the instructions actually heard the judge instruct about that (I didn't, though I only heard about 1/2 of the instructions).
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
19,063
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Now we're in the "waiting on the verdict" portion of things.  Usually, the attorneys stick tight to the courtroom for a bit, in case there's an instant verdict, or, more likely, a question.  In a case that's likely not going to be retried (i.e., a less important case), it's usually an opportunity to shoot the breeze with the other side, often just appreciating the advocacy and the arguments, or catching up on completely non-trial related stuff.  'Course, there are pairs of opposing counsel who'd rather keep on fighting or get absorbed into their cellphones and ignore the other side.  But usually it's fairly cordial with a wide range of possible topics.  Often you shake hands.  (The defendant is usually removed to a holding cell (and given his sandwiches) while everyone else waits.)
 
Sometime the judge gets involved in the discussions - but again, with retrial a real possibility, Garsh probably won't even engage in small talk, let alone trial talk.  Depending on the dynamics, sometimes the court personnel (clerks, bailiff, reporters, etc.) will weigh in with their two cents.  There's sometimes a certain amount of trash talking, which can be fun/interesting.  
 
There's also the inevitable coffee/bathroom runs, jotting down whatever appellate issues come to mind, finishing any last minute motions (usually administrative), making sure the record is preserved (such as it can be), and clarifying any issues with the clerk regarding exhibits, etc.    
 
Overall, it's kind of like the spotlight is shut off and everyone relaxes.  The speed definitely slows down.  Sometimes there's almost a sense of group accomplishment - although that's not quite the right way to say it.  It may be more that everyone has taken everyone else's measure in a stressful/difficult situation which is now, mostly, over.  
 
Some attorneys have a lot of anxiety waiting for the verdict.  I usually only feel it when the jury comes into the room and everyone is standing, waiting for the verdict to be read.  It's always a bit of a surprise and shock to hear the verdict, no matter if it's exactly what you (and everyone else) suspects.  While there can be some solid visual clues as to the verdict before it's read (from jury body language and eye contact, and/or the judge/clerk) often juries will keep their poker faces on in tight/important cases.  So you don't really know what's going to happen until the verdict is actually read aloud.  And that reading can be delayed, depending on the venue.  Sometimes it's several long minutes from the point the jury enters the room again.  (Part of me thinks that's somewhat cruel to everyone.)
 
***
(I think the most painful/shocking/surprising loss I had was one where the prosecutor came up to me after close, while we were waiting for a verdict, and said, "Hey, we both knew you were going to win, but did you have to make it hurt so much?"  It was 100% affable (he's a really decent guy).  We both knew the state's case completely sucked and had joked about it.  Therefore, we were both shocked when the jury came back guilty.  It's been 5 years but he brings it up when I see him - mostly to say something like, "Shit, if you ever figure out what I did to win that, l'll pay you for your insights."  When I left the PD's office, he was the only prosecutor to have a winning record against me (in cases where I was first chair).  1-0.  But I'm not bitter.  Much.)
 

PeaceSignMoose

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2006
1,745
Boston
Joshv02 said:
Right, but no one who listened to the instructions actually heard the judge instruct about that (I didn't, though I only heard about 1/2 of the instructions).
Fair enough. That was my question... on if Judge Garsh was going to address it as she didn't, I'm guessing they were erroneous reports.
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
norm from cheers said:
Can the Jury ask to see video evidence or pictures/transcripts and such?  If allowed who walks them thru that demonstration.. One of the clerks?
Yes.  (No idea who presses play for them.)
 

hittery

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 13, 2005
8,444
Windsor, CT
The jury can see any evidence admitted in full. Instead of transcripts, they would ask for a read back of testimony. That's quite common in cases like this.
 

MuzzyField

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
In the case I was a juror on we requested to see the transcript of a witnesses testimony. We thought they'd bring it to us in the deliberation room. Wrong. Court was reconvened, the judge welcomed us back, we requested what we wanted and the court reporter read the entire transcript from the witness. It was only on specific question we wished to hear the answer to again.
Is this the process for all jury requests?
It seemed like it was important for the judge and council to be present for the process of reexamination. What were they looking for?
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
34,589
Southwestern CT
pjr said:
 
Aaron is in a good mood-
Brian Crandall‏@nbc10_brian 42m42 minutes ago
With jury now gone, #AaronHernandez chats and laughs with Shayanna Jenkins. Court officer breaks it up after a couple minutes
 

Brian Crandall @nbc10_brian  ·  36m 36 minutes ago


Hernandez family and #AaronHernandez are sharing laughs from across the partition that separates them in the courtroom.

 
 
If I understand the gist of the defense close, his lawyer admitted that Hernandez was present when Odin Lloyd was murdered.  And his response after the trial ends is to shoot the breeze with his girlfriend and family as if nothing has happened?
 
The guy is a straight up sociopath and deserves his fate.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
19,063
Miami (oh, Miami!)
RedOctober3829 said:
How long do you guys think deliberations will take?
 
My non-quantified thoughts.
 
Estimates are a total crapshoot.  I think the following is safe to say though.  Usually the jury will want to review some or all of the evidence.  There's a ton of it here.  If the jury all agrees as to a verdict from the get go (unlikely), they're probably talk a bit before returning a verdict.  I'm sure they want to go home, but here's the opportunity to say out loud whatever they've been privately thinking for the past few months.  Also, jurors are often conscious that an immediate verdict might look unseemly.  (I've twice had juries tell me that they waited because they didn't want to hurt the prosecutor's feelings by returning a NG verdict right away.)  
 
Given all this, I'd expect a couple of hours (or end of day verdict) at the absolute earliest.  No need to rush, but no need to come back for a second day.  
 
That might not apply here since the jury retired late in the day.  So, anytime the second day is possible.  (But this assumes juror agreement and a desire to get it done but without rushing.)
 
If there's a holdout or a split, or a disagreement on any of the charges, they'll come back for a third  day of deliberations.  
 
Assuming 9 to 5 days, I'm guessing you'd see more likely see verdicts at 10 (overnight change of heart from lone holdout), pre-post lunch, or just before the end of day.  Repeat as necessary.   The longer it goes, the more likely you are to get an early AM or late PM verdict, although holdouts/splits can resolve themselves at any time.  It's just that there's usually extra pressure right before the PM break.  Someone will loudly complain about having to come back for yet another day.
 
If there's a holdout or a split, a good indicator besides the length of deliberation is that the jury might ask a question.  Everyone assembles in court (sans jury) and the written question is read into the record by the judge.  Everyone discusses.  The judge then (usually) brings the jury in and sits them and answers the question. (Instead of sending a note back, this guarantees each juror hears the same answer.)  Usually judges default to repeating the jury instructions if they can.  Sometimes a special instruction is read, but it's rare.  
 
The question can indicate a particular legal fault line or hangup, or ask for something like a re-reading of evidence.  So they're good to pay attention to, but there's often little or no opportunity for either side to sway the jury one way or the other.  Also, just repeating the relevant jury instruction may not do anything to resolve the split/conflict/holdout's theory. 
 
Often cases resolve the same day as a question, since asking the Court a question is often a way to break a deadlock in the jury room.  While the answer may not be helpful in the sense that it gives clear guidance, the question and the act of being re-instructed often does narrow the issues for the jury.  They know they're stuck with the evidence and instructions.  
 
***
If the jury is hung, they can indicate this to the judge.  Some jurisdictions have a specific "try harder" instruction that the judge can read to the jury in that situation.  The judge will also point out that the jury can return on some of the charges and deadlock on others.  But if a jury is completely deadlocked, the judge can only send them back into the jury room so many times.  Personally, I'm guessing the "try harder" instruction breaks the deadlock in about 25% of the cases.  The rest remain hung.  There are probably stats out there somewhere on that.  
 
***
There's been some interesting research on the effect of environment on one's predisposition to judge something harshly.  Basically crappy surroundings equals a harsher condemnation of something. Pleasant surroundings make us more forgiving.  Hence, when appropriate, I become the jury's advocate in the courtroom.  I've gotten the court to order the really nice pizza for everyone.  (Once the court had both myself and the state pony up for the upgrade in the meal, but it seemed well worth it to me.) 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.