Aaron Hernandez Trial (Odin Lloyd)
- Thread starter Rovin Romine
- Start date
- Status
theapportioner said:
Is that a shit-nibbling grin, then?
Since that was a dumb one-liner, I'll take this time to echo all the earlier kudos to Rovin and the other legal eagles on the great work here. This has been pretty much my only outlet for news on this, and I've been getting a crash course in a lot of fascinating aspects of the law.
DaughtersofDougMirabelli said:
All this talk about Kudos...
God, those were delicious.
And now back to RR (who has been doing a phenomenal job in this thread along with many others, kudos!)
Only a half day tomorrow. They're out at one. I doubt any of them want to go back on Monday if they don't have to.
NortheasternPJ said:
To me it seems like it should be an easy call. Hell, the defense basically admitted that the prosecution had it right about him driving OL there. At the same time the prosecution didn't prove that Hernandez shot him. It really boils down to whether you think Hernandez should be held responsible. I'm not sure going through the evidence again will really change people's minds.
Well, the law says that if Hernandez participated in the shooting of Odin Lloyd, he is responsible for committing murder. It has nothing to do with whether anyone thinks he "should" be held responsible; the law is clear on this point.axx said:
lexrageorge said:
I guess that's where the 'responsible' and 'participated' meet really. I don't think they proved that the intent was to kill OL when they took him there. Harm him, yes... including trying to intimidate him over the info he told OL about the double murder.
soxfan121 said:
I agree, it's weird. I was basing my comments on it's been 16 hours so far, they'll have another 4 tomorrow (unless Just One Station causes more delays) and will be at 20 hours. If they're no where close, then it would have no bearing.
If they're close and as RR indicated up above it's more likely to come first thing after sleeping on it or at the end of the day after a quasi-self-imposed deadline then it would make sense.
No one know shit at this point.
I said from the beginning that I'm convinced he is guilty and think he will be convicted.
But people need to understand that there is a difference between weak arguments and ridiculous ones. The case for reasonable doubt here may be weak; it is not ridiculous. When combined with the well established unpredictability of juries, no outcome will surprise me -- conviction, acquittal or a jury that hangs.
We are past the point now where a jury stays out simply to look respectable. It clearly is working through the key issues in the case. That should be welcomed.
But people need to understand that there is a difference between weak arguments and ridiculous ones. The case for reasonable doubt here may be weak; it is not ridiculous. When combined with the well established unpredictability of juries, no outcome will surprise me -- conviction, acquittal or a jury that hangs.
We are past the point now where a jury stays out simply to look respectable. It clearly is working through the key issues in the case. That should be welcomed.
Isn't there an anti-merger doctrine? So if you commit felony assault and the victim dies, the assault can't be the predicate felony raising what would otherwise have been a lesser homicide offense to felony murder.SumnerH said:
Look, the guy was shot dead! Five times IIRC. Getting out of the car on the first shot. That rises above felony assault dontchathink? OL wasn't driven out to the secluded location by AH and his cronies to scare him.Marciano490 said:
I hope so, and soon we'll know if the jury thinks so.SumnerH said:
Loaded guns can certainly intimidate and scare a person, just remember not to pull the trigger and deposit a bunch of bullets in them, they can die.
Was there a felony murder instruction? I have not seen it mentioned ( but everything I know about the specific facts of this trial has come from this thread).MuzzyField said:
And I think aggravated assault (aka assault w/deadly weapon) is not a predicate for felony murder anyway. Aggravated assault that results in death is textbook murder 2. IOW, the intent element of aggravated assault is legally sufficient for the malice element of murder 2 but not for M1 (no premeditation) nor is it a predicate felony for felony murder which in most states is equivalent to M1.
dcmissle said:
As it relates to the jury being unpredictable, I agree. It only takes one to hang a jury and that's quite conceivable.
As it relates to arguments like "we only meant to intimidate him and somehow he ended up dead and it was all a colossal accident" well ... we'll just have to disagree, because that's the definition of preposterous. (Also, as Sumner points out, it's not a defense against murder.)
The time that has elapsed does not give me pause because there have been a number of incidents that have delayed the effective time they have had to deliberate. Even so, there's nothing particularly alarming with a jury taking their time to go through the evidence.
With all of this said, an acquittal requires unanimous agreement and I cannot wrap my head around that given the evidence that has been presented almost without rebuttal by the defense. I will be shocked beyond words if this happens.
I get your point -- and I'm not sure we disagree -- but I think the deliberation room more closely resembles a sausage factory floor than a faculty lounge. Jurors are engaged in a process far messier than drawing the most plausible inferences from undisputed facts, and in my experience jury instructions are not mechanically applied. It's more about arriving at rough justice; juror need to be comfortable with their decisions, and "the law" often serves as a psychological anchor as much as a driver.Average Reds said:
That's why clients allow lawyers to spend hundreds of thousands mock trying civil cases. I am occasionally astounded by these exercises. You and your mock adversary believe points a, b and c are pivotal; you get verdicts based on x, y and z, which are sometimes points that neither side argued explicitly very heavily. This is not juror nullification as that is commonly understood; it's people being people.
I don't try criminal cases, so I'll defer entirely to RR and others on this -- but I also have a general sense that it may be increasingly difficult to win convictions in circumstantial evidence cases. There is not only the old Perry Mason problem, but also expectations created by the likes of CSI. On top of that the last decade has brought overwhelming evidence that lots of convictions are wrongful. (Just this week, for example, the Attorney General of VA is joining with defense counsel to petition the Governor for a pardon of a guy who has been wrongfully imprisoned for 29 years based on a striking physical resemblance to the individual who actually committed the rapes and is already imprisoned). And, of course, you've got DNA evidence exculpating individuals who in some instances came within hours of execution. These factors are not present in this case, of course, but I believe confidence in the system generally has been pretty seriously eroded.
I still expect a conviction here, but I think this jury may be out substantially longer than many people expect.
I don't think felony murder is on the table, either as a charge or factually.
Also, it's helpful to think of "intent" as the opposite of "accident" (something I don't think the prosecutor went into.) Putting aside the doctrine of transferred intent, one can accidentally shoot someone under a number of circumstances, either unknowingly, or recklessly or what have you. But there's no specific intent to send a bullet into someone.
Putting two bullets through a guy's chest while he's lying on the ground isn't "accidental" - it's "intentional." To use one of AR's words, it really is preposterous to view that as anything other than a deliberate effort to end the life of a man. And that's all that's needed.
(Perhaps I sound downgrade my rating of the prosecution's close.)
***
This gets a little tricky when interacting with joint venture, but again, I personally wouldn't have a reasonable doubt. Mostly due to the actions afterward - smoothies by the pool, letting W/O take charge of the 8 month old, payoffs, destruction of evidence, failure to come forward to the police, etc.
Also, it's helpful to think of "intent" as the opposite of "accident" (something I don't think the prosecutor went into.) Putting aside the doctrine of transferred intent, one can accidentally shoot someone under a number of circumstances, either unknowingly, or recklessly or what have you. But there's no specific intent to send a bullet into someone.
Putting two bullets through a guy's chest while he's lying on the ground isn't "accidental" - it's "intentional." To use one of AR's words, it really is preposterous to view that as anything other than a deliberate effort to end the life of a man. And that's all that's needed.
(Perhaps I sound downgrade my rating of the prosecution's close.)
***
This gets a little tricky when interacting with joint venture, but again, I personally wouldn't have a reasonable doubt. Mostly due to the actions afterward - smoothies by the pool, letting W/O take charge of the 8 month old, payoffs, destruction of evidence, failure to come forward to the police, etc.
I'm with AR, an acquittal would shock me, a hung jury would surprise me.
It is weird to read how much babble (not just here, out in the world) there is about how the state didn't make a case. I think there are a lot of people who think like HRB has in this thread (and I guess a few others). Everyone watching from the gallery seems to be waiting for the big moment. But, it's hard to have big moments when the defense gets to review all of the evidence. Not like the prosecution can just bring in some surprise piece of evidence that just condemns AH. I guess maybe people would have liked it if Shayanna said "oh yes I disposed of a gun and I believe it is the murder weapon." but it doesn't make much sense that she would say that unless this whole thing was a L&O level misdirection where SJ set up AH so she could keep his money but get rid of his cheating ass and also get rid of her sister's deadbeat boyfriend.
But, since these people are out in the world, it's possible they are on the jury.
As for the deliberation time, I can see the jury wanting to take their job seriously, understand joint venture, understand the specifics of the gun charges, understand exactly what murder 1 and murder 2 are, and weighing the evidence against each.
It is weird to read how much babble (not just here, out in the world) there is about how the state didn't make a case. I think there are a lot of people who think like HRB has in this thread (and I guess a few others). Everyone watching from the gallery seems to be waiting for the big moment. But, it's hard to have big moments when the defense gets to review all of the evidence. Not like the prosecution can just bring in some surprise piece of evidence that just condemns AH. I guess maybe people would have liked it if Shayanna said "oh yes I disposed of a gun and I believe it is the murder weapon." but it doesn't make much sense that she would say that unless this whole thing was a L&O level misdirection where SJ set up AH so she could keep his money but get rid of his cheating ass and also get rid of her sister's deadbeat boyfriend.
But, since these people are out in the world, it's possible they are on the jury.
As for the deliberation time, I can see the jury wanting to take their job seriously, understand joint venture, understand the specifics of the gun charges, understand exactly what murder 1 and murder 2 are, and weighing the evidence against each.
And to respond to DC's point(s) - yes, the jury deliberation process is what it is. I have reasonable faith in it though.
I wouldn't want to guess about the circumstantial case theory.
When you get right down to it, very few cases have "direct" evidence for all of the elements. And "direct" evidence (say, an eyewitness) isn't always reliable as circumstantial evidence (say, fingerprint on a murder weapon.) The worth of the case is based in the facts of the case - assigning a case as "direct" or "circumstantial" isn't really that useful. There are murder convictions where a body was never recovered.
I wouldn't want to guess about the circumstantial case theory.
When you get right down to it, very few cases have "direct" evidence for all of the elements. And "direct" evidence (say, an eyewitness) isn't always reliable as circumstantial evidence (say, fingerprint on a murder weapon.) The worth of the case is based in the facts of the case - assigning a case as "direct" or "circumstantial" isn't really that useful. There are murder convictions where a body was never recovered.
Another pitfall -- draw no inferences from the mere length of deliberations. I will never forget how Jeffrey Toobin completely soiled himself on old Court TV in the OJ case, even with Roy Black on split screen telling Toobin before the verdict came in that he should know better.
Obviously, if we start getting jury notes reflecting a great struggle in deliberations, you can infer something from that re a possible mistrial.
Obviously, if we start getting jury notes reflecting a great struggle in deliberations, you can infer something from that re a possible mistrial.
Like many others I wanted to say thank you to Rovin and the rest for their views and dialogue on what transpired at this trial.smastroyin said:
To clarify on any "big moment" or "ah ha!" in this case it had less to do with a Law and Order episode and more to do with a jury deciding unanimously (key word) that AH was guilty despite there being no weapon, no witnesses, and no motive.
It's difficult to understand how the trial transpired from a jurors perspective by checking an Internet thread a couple times a day so I'm not certain how much of the latter was proven but the prosecution certainly presented a strong case without those key components. How strong I suppose we'll find out soon enough.
BTW, per Fraga, the jury will deliberate until 1pm today.
Since it's a Friday, there may be some natural internal pressure to return a verdict and be done with things. (Or maybe the jury agrees they all have about 12 more hours of review/work to do on the case and they're all happy getting out "early" on Friday.)
All options (and verdicts) are open.
Since it's a Friday, there may be some natural internal pressure to return a verdict and be done with things. (Or maybe the jury agrees they all have about 12 more hours of review/work to do on the case and they're all happy getting out "early" on Friday.)
All options (and verdicts) are open.
Sounds like most pros are in agreement with the consensus here.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2015/04/09/law-schooled-experts-predict-the-aaron-hernandez-outcome/3KjiLyWuxjpaAkvVGkisEN/story.html
edit: link:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2015/04/09/law-schooled-experts-predict-the-aaron-hernandez-outcome/3KjiLyWuxjpaAkvVGkisEN/story.html
I'm curious: is this a product of most municipal workers in MA working only half a day on Fridays (at least, that's the way it was all over the North Shore when I lived there)?Rovin Romine said:
Omar's Wacky Neighbor said:
No clue. Sometimes in long trials you get half days so the court can conduct other necessary business. Once the jury's out deliberating though, the court can go back to doing what it ordinarily does. It's possible that some jurors have a personal thing they need to attend to on Friday afternoon(s).
Rovin Romine said:
From what I have heard, it was the jury who requested dismissal at 1:00 PM today. Bob McGovern of the Boston Herald had that yesterday I believe.
Edit: Yup
https://twitter.com/BobMcGovernJr/status/586262198999261184
PeaceSignMoose said:
That might indicate the jury knows its going to be a long haul. Personally, if I were the defense that'd make me nervous. Again, this is like reading tea leaves, but I'd be worried that a holdout pro-defense juror might give into temptation over the weekend and do some googling. There's nothing out there in cyberspace that helps AH. Just hearing about the double homicide might tip the balance. Let alone the excluded evidence.
Studies suggest some decisions are often made emotionally, then bolstered by whatever facts we can grab to support them. So maybe the hypothetical googling has no effect.
A requested 1PM dismissal really turns it into a "I know, that you know, that I know, that you know...." in my mind.
IOW, as a lay person, I wouldnt even attempt to figure out what it could mean
IOW, as a lay person, I wouldnt even attempt to figure out what it could mean
Omar's Wacky Neighbor said:
Yeah, this is all just pure speculation. It's sort of fun thinking about the dynamics though.
Maybe it's just a case of only remembering when the weather man is wrong, not when he's right, but:Rovin Romine said:
seems that most times a talking head makes a prediction on the verdict weighted on length of deliberation, the prediction is wrong.
Social media is an enormous problem for jury trials right now, easily # 1 on judge's worry list.
The problem with rooting it out is that nobody is supposed to be probing deliberations, period. I guess the most probable way for it to come up would be for a "holdout" juror to begin making arguments based on Google searches, and for another pissed off juror to report this to the judge.
The problem with rooting it out is that nobody is supposed to be probing deliberations, period. I guess the most probable way for it to come up would be for a "holdout" juror to begin making arguments based on Google searches, and for another pissed off juror to report this to the judge.
joe dokes said:
I think he means that the jury has to agree to enter an acquittal judgement. They don't have to agree on facts, they don't have to agree on where they see reasonable doubt, and they don't even have to agree on "innocent" (vs. reasonable doubt) but they have to be unanimous that they are ruling for acquittal.
Otherwise we wouldn't have hung juries, right?
A verdict either way in a Massachusetts criminal trial must be unanimous. What are you trying to say?joe dokes said:
joe dokes said:
Not possible to prove a negative. That's why the burden always rests with the prosecution.
However, an acquittal does require a unanimous "not guilty" vote and I cannot see 12 people coming to that conclusion in this case.
Yes.TheRooster said:
Not everybody follows or cares in the slightest about the Patriots, Aaron Hernandez and these cases.
TheRooster said:
I doubt it. They might not have known going in but they've been on jury duty for a long time and I'll bet one or more of them decided to do some googling.
My wife works for a local non-profit and not a one of them would be aware of AH, this trial, and certainly not any other potential situation.TheRooster said:
OilCanShotTupac said:
The first two and the last two days of Passover are yomim tovim, which means they have Shabbos-like restrictions on work and activities. These restrictions went into effect at sundown last night, so an Orthodox Jew would not have been able to come at all today.
- Status