Aaron Hernandez Trial (Odin Lloyd)
- Thread starter Rovin Romine
- Start date
- Status
MuzzyField said:
Fairness. All parties need to make sure the transcript answer is accurate. All the individual jurors need to hear the same thing.
(Plus, it's slow and a pain, so it kind of discourages the jury from asking to see the entire trial a second time.)
Average Reds said:
AH has done, as far as I can tell, a decent job at not acting like an ass in front of the jury. (He had some sort of staredown with Bradley prior to the jury coming in.)
Juries can (and do) pick up on the defendant's behavior. Worst one I saw (personally) was an adult defendant who was accused (among other things) of shooting a teenager multiple times in the abdomen. The victim testified about having to have a colostomy and having to wear a bag at school. The defendant sneered and audibly scoffed at him. I saw jury members register this - look straight at the defendant. So he sneered at the jury. I was the second chair - one of the few times I've wanted to turn to my client and say "Why do I fucking bother?" (In the sense of, "Hey, you want to sink the trial, then why not just plead guilty and we'll subpoena people for sentencing.")
Average Reds said:
If Hernandez was there, and he wasn't guilty because O/W flipped out, what's with the next few days? What's with the pool party? What's with the rest of SJ's testimony? What's with SJ running around and handing money to O/W with her baby in the car?
The last part is nuts. Even if there was some reason AH wanted to put up some kind of front to save his life and so was trying to act normal in front of his fiancee and didn't actually do it and didn't want to cause a scene, would you really send your fiancee and kid to find your crazy violent drug addict friends in the middle of the night at a deserted parking lot to hand them cash?
If the lawyer admitted he was there, then I think SJ and her reaction here are really the downfall. I guess there's some way the jury doesn't put it together because I'm not sure I would have without the posts upthread, but SJ's nonchalant testimony - despite being completely protective of AH in almost every way - might be the most critical thing.
It worked, we didn't make any more requests. Instead, we compared notes and figured it out for ourselves.Rovin Romine said:
Jnai said:
Your post captures the reason why I have always assumed that he was going to be convicted from day one.
Once you prove that he was there, it's not conceivable that the co-defendants were actually in charge and AH was along for the ride. And AH's actions after the trial do not align with any vision of him being scared or intimidated by his co-defendants. They show a clear consciousness of guilt and align with him being the ringleader, which he obviously was.
my one time as a juror was on a civil case.
It was an auto accident. Plaintiff was a young guy, maybe 25, had been driving to his job as a Verizon engineer on a two-way street in Brooklyn. He was going straight and he had a green light. woman in her late 50s/early 60s tries to make a left turn Across a red light and T-bones him in the side in the middle of the intersection. Clear day, sunny, no weather issues.
it was completely, screamingly obvious to everyone that she was 100% liable, no doubt, no mitigating factors, no ambiguity.
We deliberated for one hour. All six of us said in the first 30 seconds of deliberating that she was liable. We spent about 10 minutes "just making sure" by asking and re-asking each other the same questions over and over again. Then we spent the rest of the hour talking about the weather and having the other five ask me questions about law school (I was a 2L at the time). there seemed to be an unspoken agreement that coming back too soon would not be polite in some way, or credible, or whatever.
It was a bifurcated trial, meaning two phases-first liability, and then, if liability found, a second phase on damages. We came in and read our verdict, and the judge looked disgusted. He knew this was the biggest piece of crap case - Throughout the trial, he'd been really miserable to the lawyers, kind of like "why are you making me try this crap."
We went to lunch, and when we came back, he told us it had settled with regards to damages.
It was an auto accident. Plaintiff was a young guy, maybe 25, had been driving to his job as a Verizon engineer on a two-way street in Brooklyn. He was going straight and he had a green light. woman in her late 50s/early 60s tries to make a left turn Across a red light and T-bones him in the side in the middle of the intersection. Clear day, sunny, no weather issues.
it was completely, screamingly obvious to everyone that she was 100% liable, no doubt, no mitigating factors, no ambiguity.
We deliberated for one hour. All six of us said in the first 30 seconds of deliberating that she was liable. We spent about 10 minutes "just making sure" by asking and re-asking each other the same questions over and over again. Then we spent the rest of the hour talking about the weather and having the other five ask me questions about law school (I was a 2L at the time). there seemed to be an unspoken agreement that coming back too soon would not be polite in some way, or credible, or whatever.
It was a bifurcated trial, meaning two phases-first liability, and then, if liability found, a second phase on damages. We came in and read our verdict, and the judge looked disgusted. He knew this was the biggest piece of crap case - Throughout the trial, he'd been really miserable to the lawyers, kind of like "why are you making me try this crap."
We went to lunch, and when we came back, he told us it had settled with regards to damages.
Completely off topic to the case specifically, but what is the status of his salary cap hit? I believe it was somewhat tied to him being convicted, no?
It's covered up thread somewhere, but I don't believe anything is directly tied to his being convicted.Papelbon's Poutine said:
Longer version: The Pats are trying to recoup some (or all, I can't recall) of the bonus money paid out to Hernandez, saying he violated his contract. If AH is convicted, the Pats case is obviously stronger, but there's still lots of contract and CBA jargon that the arbitrator needs to rule on. There's also the matter of whether the Pats would be even be able to recover the money. Goodell's wheels spin at their own pace, so I don't expect any salary cap relief anytime soon, if ever.
There is also a grievance against the Pats for some workout bonus money that was withheld after AH was arrested. Hernandez chances of winning that grievance were already minuscule, and for obvious reasons those chances will drop dramatically if he's convicted. But, again, an arbitrator will make the final call. And I don't believe the Pats get any relief if they win that grievance hearing; it only prevents them from being docked for the unpaid bonus in future years.
I have only read this thread for the last 24 hours, kind of like watching the last few minutes of an NBA game. But, I want to thank Rovin Romine and others for the exceptionally informative commentary on the proceedings.
It's been said many times but thanks from me RR for your insights. The technicalities and explanations are awesome, but I particularly enjoy your insights into the "out of trial" stuff like the above.Rovin Romine said:
Just want to add my thanks to RR and the supporting posters who provided so much detail and insight. The time and effort is appreciated. This thread has been a fascinating read.
There's no more cap hit with him. If anything, AH will count towards crediting money back.Papelbon's Poutine said:
I'll add onto the list of posts thanking RR and everyone else who has contributed. I'd be completely lost otherwise.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
lexrageorge said:
As I recall, the question turns on whether he's convicted for the drive-by of Abreu and Furtado in July 2012, not the Odin Lloyd murder. If that was true, then he made material misrepresentations on whether there was any legal matter that might prevent him from honoring his contract when he signed it in August 2012, and I thought there was possibility of recovery for the Patriots.
This is from memory, but maybe deep in the bowels of the old Hernandez thread(s) is some better detail on it. Regardless, the point is, I think that's the case that's the money one for the Pats - not that there are any winners here.
RedOctober3829 said:
Sorry, that's what I meant. Should have been more clear.
MentalDisabldLst said:
Yeah, I think this was what I was remembering. They need to physically recoup the cash if I remember correctly, in order to get credit.
The more I ruminated overnight about the closings, the more I wonder if the jury will be irked by the Defense's waste of time and gamesmanship. We just sat through a couple of months with the defense challenging the contention that AH was at the scene, that they targeted AH because of his celebrity. Then we get to the closing, and they do more of the same, but finally they admit that AH was actually there and witnessed the shooting. I know there are nuances in the state's proof might have allowed dispute (i.e., was AH out of the car -- footprints), but the defense even contested items such as tire prints, etc. that they now admit in the closing were accurate? Apart from the doubts I have on AH's defense to joint venture liability (AH's post-killing party with the "shooters") if I am a juror I am both annoyed that the defense wasted my time on those items, and also feel that if they are doing this that they have no real defense. Now, I am predisposed to the prosecution, so I wonder if my bias is that of the jury. Anyone else share that view?
Steve Dillard said:
Thats not really bias...its a reasonable conclusion. Once AH makes the decision to go to trial (either rejecting a plea deal, or none was offered), defense counsel has to build a fire with whatever wet, rotten sticks he can find. Under the circumstances of this case, hoping that the witnesses wont be great / good cross examination can give enough space to contest the state's proof and then conceding later vs. conceding from the outset is not a great choice, but its the one he has to make. If he concedes presence early on, will he have completely lost the jury before he has cross-examined even a single witness? Doing it this way, did he gain at least a tiny bit of hope with one or two jurors, and maybe didn't lose them both over the concern you raise? Is there one juror who might appreciate the candor, even if its late, that might save the jury some time in deliberations because an issue is of th table?
Lawyers get dealt shitty hands & they can't fold.
In the civil trials I did, I was lucky enough that my (usually sophisticated) clients understood that sometimes the battle isn't over liability but damages; or that what seems like a large damage award really isn't. Its hard to know where AH or his family has drawn that line.
I hate to inquire about what may have already been covered back in the thread that I'm too lazy to go read. But do we have a consensus or reasonable opinion (collectively or from RR) as to what likely happened at the scene based on the physical evidence (gunshot wounds, footprints, seats in the car, etc.). For instance, do we know what seat may have been the gunman and who was in it? I know there is evidence regarding the wounds and OL being shot while getting out of the car, but I missed the testimony and what conclusions the jury may draw from that evidence. More that one shooter, etc?
If it is clear in an earlier post, please just direct me back to that area of the thread and I'll go check it out. Thanks in advance.
If it is clear in an earlier post, please just direct me back to that area of the thread and I'll go check it out. Thanks in advance.
My understanding of the theory:
AH shooter and driver.
Accomplice 1 in passenger seat
Accomplice 2 behind AH
OL behind Accomplice 1 (video evidence of OL entering car, though maybe he walked around after not being able to get in the passenger seat - I'd have to look, but the surveillance video definitely shows OL tried to sit in the passenger seat and then had to choose a different seat)
Accomplice 1 opens door for OL, OL is shot as he exits. (casing in car, some fingerprint evidence)
AH exits car, walks around the back of it, shoots OL 5 (?) more times (footprints, shell casings)
Possible Wallace was shooter, evidence seems to indicate that Ortiz was not. If Wallace was shooter, he would have been in the back with OL.
AH shooter and driver.
Accomplice 1 in passenger seat
Accomplice 2 behind AH
OL behind Accomplice 1 (video evidence of OL entering car, though maybe he walked around after not being able to get in the passenger seat - I'd have to look, but the surveillance video definitely shows OL tried to sit in the passenger seat and then had to choose a different seat)
Accomplice 1 opens door for OL, OL is shot as he exits. (casing in car, some fingerprint evidence)
AH exits car, walks around the back of it, shoots OL 5 (?) more times (footprints, shell casings)
Possible Wallace was shooter, evidence seems to indicate that Ortiz was not. If Wallace was shooter, he would have been in the back with OL.
Not sure if this was posted upthread but foxsports did a nice job of putting together a timeline based on all the information that has been gathered:
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/aaron-hernandez-murder-case-timeline-051414
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/aaron-hernandez-murder-case-timeline-051414
Well, involuntary is out the window because they weren't doing anything else (like robbing a place or closing a drug deal and the repeated shots indicate that it wasn't an accident)
voluntary would seem to be out the window because there is no provocation.
So I think it seems to be an issue where if Hernandez is found culpable for Odin Lloyd's death, it has to be a murder charge.
Though there are plenty of lawyers here that will chime in with what is actually true, that is my reading.
voluntary would seem to be out the window because there is no provocation.
So I think it seems to be an issue where if Hernandez is found culpable for Odin Lloyd's death, it has to be a murder charge.
Though there are plenty of lawyers here that will chime in with what is actually true, that is my reading.
I finally saw the defense close on the news last night.
The lawyer did what he could with the information available to him, but his theory is laughable on its face. The only question in my mind is whether the jury comes back with a guilty verdict today or tomorrow.
The lawyer did what he could with the information available to him, but his theory is laughable on its face. The only question in my mind is whether the jury comes back with a guilty verdict today or tomorrow.
smastroyin said:
Just to expand on this there could only have been one shooter. Forensic evidence showed all six shell casings came from the same gun.
Also there was no gunshot residue on Lloyd from any of the bullets until the last two, when he was presumably on the ground (on his back) and the killer put in the two final killing blows while standing over him. This evidence points to the shooter being furthest from Lloyd when he got out of the car (Hernandez), as there would theoretically be residue if the other two accomplices shot him, since one was sitting right next to him and the other was opening the door.
RR took notes on the prosecutions theory here.
They can only return verdicts for what is charged. They have 3 verdict sheets.epraz said:
1. Not guilty
2. Guilty or not on M1
3. Guilty or not on M2
Verdict sheets are literally the 4th grade check yes or no style answer form.
From a strategic standpoint sometimes defense lawyers do not want a lesser charge included for the jury as the all or nothing option is more favorable to the possibility of a jury returning not guilty. If the evidence is weak for M1, they don't want a lesser charge included and give the jury an "out".
Slavedriver.JimBoSox9 said:
Thanks to everyone for the kind words, and for consistently ignoring my awful grammar/spelling/drafting mistakes. I love this sort of trial and discussion, so it's hardly a burden to do it. Also, I learn quit a bit from the questions and responses, so it's not a one way street. (Again, please don't take anything I say as gospel.)
***
I think, with all the recent responses, the table is sort of clear of issues at this point. That Fox timeline was excellent, but included some evidence not in front of the jury, and skipped evidence that was put in front of the jury. Paulin's right on the money with the charging instructions.
Samastroyin/DoDM have fleshed out the theory of the actual shooting. Forensics indicate it was done with one gun (a .45), which normally means one shooter. Also, the internal damage before death (blood flowing into the chest cavity instead of the extremities), can provide some information as to the order of the shots. The last two were fired through OL's body into the earth as he was laying on his back. This strongly supports the theory of AH initially shooting while OL was exiting the car, then AH exiting the car and walking around the car, firing at OL, before standing over him and putting the final two bullets into his chest. (Additionally, we have the testimony of the ear-witnesses that the shots were clustered together.)
Edit - is there anything you guys want to kick around?
Maybe it was entered and I missed it, but I'm kind of curious as to why the defense was able to present this evidence of AH being a good dude, where there is a preponderance of evidence (the consistent drunk driving, the essentially kidnapping of the babysitter (at least he let her go when she refused the advances), the frequent time away from home implying little interest in giving up the club life for being a father?) that he, at least around the time of the killing, was pretty much not a good dude?
Is it that the state doesn't feel the need to color AH in this light? Don't feel they need it, etc.?
Is it that the state doesn't feel the need to color AH in this light? Don't feel they need it, etc.?
No, they still get their own trial(s) with the presumption of innocence intact. And I am pretty sure it would be a basis for a mistrial (or reversal on appeal) if the prosecutor mentioned that AH had been convicted under a joint venture theory in which these guys were his fellow travelers.Jnai said:
Edit: there is one exception I can think of, which the defense counsel would have to be a moron to allow to happen: if AH gets called to the stand by the defense, the prosecutor could* impeach him with the conviction as showing untrustworthiness and to contradict any inconsistent facts he testifies to. So assuming defense counsel is not a moron, he will not call AH to the stand.
*: Under the Federal rules. MA law may vary here.
Having never been on a jury, the personal accounts here and google not helping, does the judge usually pick the foreman? I was always under the impression that the jury picked the foreman, but I don't know very much.
smastroyin said:
There's something called "character evidence" or "evidence of character." It includes someone's general reputation and specific good or bad acts they've done in their life. Evidence of this kind is explicitly governed by what seem to be very 19th century rules (depending on the jurisdiction, they vary.) Character evidence suggests the person couldn't have done the crime *because* their character would preclude it (e.g. - they're a lifelong pacifist, and has a reputation for such in the community, etc). The rules are weird and don't track what we know of modern psychology - but they're also there to prevent undesirable "character based" convictions, e.g., AH is more likely to be a murder because he's a drunk driver.
Personally, I thought AH's character was put into play by some of the questions asked and some of the evidence presented. That should have triggered the rules allowing the prosecution to question the witnesses as to AH's other bad acts. However, the court may have ruled that these things were not "evidence of character," but rather went to the defendant's "state of mind" - his intent, possibly his motive. If that was the case then the prosecution couldn't get into prior bad acts.
It's a very technical issue, in part because of those odd rules.
knuck said:
It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In FL, for example, the jury elects one among themselves. I know a female judge who inflects one part of the jury instructions in a ringing voice: "a man or a woman may be elected the foreperson of a jury." Always brings a smile to my face.
Possibly. If there was somehow new evidence tending to show innocence that applies to AH, most states have ways to reopen a conviction (with varying levels of difficulty). If there were a failure of proof on a point specific to one of O/W, then it's probably no help to AH.Jnai said:
edit: Also, keep in mind that a jury doesn't come back and say "innocent." It's either "guilty" or "not guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt. So it is permissible for one jury to be convinced and another jury not to--an acquittal of one, without more, is not really evidence that a conviction of another was incorrect. In the absence of new evidence that points toward actual innocence, I don't think an acquittal will mean much. That said, if one of O/W gets on the stand and convinces the jury that something else happened, that might be the sort of new evidence AH could use. (Not that I think this is at all likely, mind you.)
No. (How's that for a concise answer from an attorney?) Edit - sigh, just when I thought I'd get in a one word answer. KY is correct in that new evidence could be the basis for an appeal by AH, however, absent that, the routine results of the O/W trials would have no bearing on AH's immediate appeal.Jnai said:
***
To riff off KY's response. IF AH was convicted (and appeals were exhausted -i.e., there was a final verdict which could not be revisited), the prosecution could call AH as a witness in the W/O trial. As we saw here, they couldn't do that just to impeach him, (and additional immunity might have to be granted.) But it could happen. Or the defense could call AH. Why they'd do that, I have no idea.
But there is basically 0 chance this is it, right? I mean, no matter how it ends the verdict will surely be appealed by the losing side.
Assuming that he was already gone for life with no chance of parole, he could testify that they had no idea and he acted completely alone to get them off the hook. I assume the prosecution would want to impeach him as a witness to prevent that from happening.Rovin Romine said:
RIFan said:
Ortiz already flipped on AH. I don't know what happened to his case, pending, not pending, deal in place, not in place, etc. Wallace is a tougher issue. I think he was also implicated in the double homicide? Or gun dealing in general?
***
In any event, regardless of who calls him, do you think AH wouldn't implode on the stand? That he'd tell the details of the BS cover story correctly? That he'd explain all the tangential issues? (I'm sort of salivating thinking about it.) Or would AH just refuse to testify and be held in contempt? While there may be no further penalty for AH in terms of years, it's possible there can be administrative penalties applied to his incarceration. Privileges taken away, that sort of thing. I'd have to read up on that issue to make a better guess - it's not one I've directly run into before.
Not to side track, but the Tsarnaev jury has reached a verdict.. will go live at 1:45 pm est on various tv stations and here online
http://livewire.wcvb.com/Event/Tsarnaev_Boston_Marathon_Bombing_Trial
Edit.. not live streamed in court room.. but reporters will tweet.. just live coverage from outside. I am on a conference call and saw the tweet announcing verdict in a few minutes
http://livewire.wcvb.com/Event/Tsarnaev_Boston_Marathon_Bombing_Trial
Edit.. not live streamed in court room.. but reporters will tweet.. just live coverage from outside. I am on a conference call and saw the tweet announcing verdict in a few minutes
Seriously? The state cannot appeal an acquittal?hittery said:
I'm not from the US, and here this is definitely possible.
Way to crush my dreams, bro.Kevin Youkulele said:Sorry
hittery said:
And now, to crush Hittery. . . If a jury acquits, usually that's final.
However, If the jury votes to convict and the judge makes a finding that no reasonable jury could have voted that way "Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict" (JNV/JNOV), and acquits the defendant on it's own authority, then that type of acquittal is appealable. JNOVs are really rare though. Basically they happen when the judge didn't (but should have) issued a JOA (an acquittal prior to charging the jury). JOA's are appealable, especially if the judge's reasoning is flawed or the case *should* have gone to a jury.
Also, the prohibition against appealing an acquittal is fundamentally grounded in double jeopardy. However, you have to be in jeopardy in the first place for that to attach. So very unusual circumstances, like bribing the judge or the jury, could result in an appeal and a second trial, under the theory that you were never in jeopardy in the first trial. Also super rare.
I'd say 99.9% of acquittals are final though.
- Status