Aaron Hernandez Trial (Odin Lloyd)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kevin Youkulele

wishes Claude Makelele was a Red Sox
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2006
3,460
San Diego
Harry Hooper said:
 
 
I understand and forgive nervous laughter, but it's gone on way too long here. Plus, the more they talk the more likely they'll step on a landmine and provide an angle for a mistrial/appeal.
Unless you can prove bias/bribery/corruption or the like, it's near impossible to get a new trial based on evidence about jury deliberations.  Essentially, the jurors can talk after the verdict, but the court can't listen.  There was one case (not in MA I think) where there was pretty good proof unearthed after the verdict that a juror was high/drunk for most of the trial and deliberation, and the court's response was essentially "so what?"
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,678
Harry Hooper said:
 
 
I understand and forgive nervous laughter, but it's gone on way too long here. Plus, the more they talk the more likely they'll step on a landmine and provide an angle for a mistrial/appeal.
There can be no mistrial any more since the trial is over.
 
There are very very few things a juror can say post-trial that would serve as a successful basis for an appeal.
 
EDIT: Beaten to it.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
25,010
joe dokes said:
 
 
There are very very few things a juror can say post-trial that would serve as a successful basis for an appeal.
 
 
 
 
IANAL, but if the jury said something like they factored the S. End shootings into the guilty verdict, that wouldn't be grounds for appeal?
 

Kevin Youkulele

wishes Claude Makelele was a Red Sox
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2006
3,460
San Diego
Harry Hooper said:
 
 
IANAL, but if the jury said something like they factored the S. End shootings into the guilty verdict, that wouldn't be grounds for appeal?
In the federal rules (FRE 606(b)), this ("extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention") is one of the three exceptions to the general ban on jurors providing testimony to undermine a verdict.  The other two are improper outside influence (e.g., bribe, see above) and mistake on the verdict form.
 

Myt1

the FRESH maker
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
27,385
South Boston
HomeRunBaker said:
Justice served. Regardless of the issues being questioned I think we all knew in the end he was guilty. Glad our system got it right this time......they don't always.

Thanks again to Rovin and others for the thread!
Yeah, about that:
 
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/82877-aaron-hernandez-eating-bugs-not-steaks/?p=5639671
 
 
Yeah OJ and Robert Blake are chuckling at this post. Celebrities have the means to hire the talent to get them off. This isn't new. Lol at him ever being found guilty in a court of law on the murder regardless of how many Sosh experts post about it.
 
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/82877-aaron-hernandez-eating-bugs-not-steaks/?p=5639796
 
 
Oh there is no doubt in my mind Aaron killed Lloyd the Pats move was a no-brainer considering the amount of circumstantial evidence. I'm referring to a jury hearing the case and agreeing on a guilty verdict......I'll change my screen name to "Litigious Society" the day that occurs.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOOEWzVX40Y
 

OilCanShotTupac

Sunny von Bulow
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
16,714
The 718
Harry Hooper said:
 
 
An absolutely obscene gigglefest going on there. Confirmation once again that you hope you never get dragged into court where your fate is in such hands.
I don't begrudge them.  I think some silliness after a week of tough deliberations over a murder conviction is completely ordinary.  They are having a rush of relief.
 
They appear to have done their jobs well, and taken their duty very seriously.  What more do you want?
 

OilCanShotTupac

Sunny von Bulow
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
16,714
The 718
 
HomeRunBaker, on 15 Apr 2015 - 10:28 AM, said:
 
Justice served. Regardless of the issues being questioned I think we all knew in the end he was guilty. Glad our system got it right this time......they don't always.
Thanks again to Rovin and others for the thread!
 
 
You, sir, are full of shit.
 

soxhop411

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
34,110
Oops

@Jeopardy: Celebrate the @Patriots Super Bowl win with the NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS category today on #Jeopardy!
 

PeaceSignMoose

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2006
1,745
Boston
Half surprised at the conviction for first degree murder. Thought if there was any county in the Commonwealth that would screw this up it would be this one.

Joining the ranks of people who want to thank RR and the other experts here. Honestly between this thread and Fraga/McGovern, I got all I possibly could have asked for in terms of coverage.

One last burning question: where is lunch, tito?
 

Kevin Youkulele

wishes Claude Makelele was a Red Sox
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2006
3,460
San Diego
theapportioner said:
What does everyone think about the "extreme atrocity and cruelty" rationale for murder 1?
Premeditation seems easier to support, but finding atrocity/cruelty is not hard or unreasonable.  He was shot 6 times, apparently twice outside the car after four times in the car.  That's brutal and his last moments were in excruciating pain.  
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
We covered this earlier, if you want to look in more detail, but that is why the prosecution solicited so much testimony about the multiple gunshots and where the shooter would have to be.
 
Murder 1 is murder with one or more of:
 
- malice aforethought.  I assume much of the deliberation is whether this was proven.  As we know, all motive in this case is hearsay, so I can see not all members of the jury agreeing that there was malice aforethought, i.e. that AH picked up OL that night not intending to kill him. 
 
- during commission of another crime.  There was no other crime here.
 
- extreme atrocity or cruelty.  It seems this bar is lower than the words themselves mean in everyday language.  I think we tend to think of "extreme atrocity" as like crucifying the guy or burning him alive.  But in this case, the fact that he was likely fearful for his life, then shot multiple times, then likely still alive as his shooter stood over him and put the final two bullets into his chest qualifies.  So, it was really the best thing the state had to go murder 1 since so much of the motive evidence was hearsay and thrown out.  There is direct evidence that OL's last moments alive were brutal.  
 
I'm not listening to the jury press conference but I assume they quickly got to guilty on the gun charges and murder, and needed the time to parse through whether the state had met burden for murder 1, probably had a bunch of discussion/disagreement on malice aforethought and figuring out how to interpret the atrocity or cruelty part.  But I'm just guessing.
 

maufman

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Harry Hooper said:
 
 
I understand and forgive nervous laughter, but it's gone on way too long here. Plus, the more they talk the more likely they'll step on a landmine and provide an angle for a mistrial/appeal.
 
I'm sorry that the jury didn't comport themselves in accordance with your personal sense of style after their 2+ months of service were completed. I doubt you'll hear the Lloyd family say a bad word about their demeanor.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
25,010
maufman said:
 
I'm sorry that the jury didn't comport themselves in accordance with your personal sense of style after their 2+ months of service were completed. I doubt you'll hear the Lloyd family say a bad word about their demeanor.
 
 
I was listening to the audio (no video). It didn't sound good.
 

maufman

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
smastroyin said:
 
 
- extreme atrocity or cruelty.  It seems this bar is lower than the words themselves mean in everyday language.  I think we tend to think of "extreme atrocity" as like crucifying the guy or burning him alive.  But in this case, the fact that he was likely fearful for his life, then shot multiple times, then likely still alive as his shooter stood over him and put the final two bullets into his chest qualifies.  So, it was really the best thing the state had to go murder 1 since so much of the motive evidence was hearsay and thrown out.  There is direct evidence that OL's last moments alive were brutal.  
 
 
 
The MA murder statute has always struck me as arbitrary. It's the rare killing that doesn't involve "extreme atrocity"; to avoid it, you almost have to take care in planning the act -- which, of course, constitutes premeditation. I'd be all in favor of eliminating the distinction between M1 and M2, having a single offense and a single punishment (mandatory life without parole), but that's a whole other discussion.
 

maufman

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Harry Hooper said:
 
 
I was listening to the audio (no video). It didn't sound good.
 
 
The video didn't look like anything besides a group of people experiencing a combination of pride in the work they had done, and relief that the ordeal was over.
 

OilCanShotTupac

Sunny von Bulow
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
16,714
The 718
maufman said:
 
 
The video didn't look like anything besides a group of people experiencing a combination of pride in the work they had done, and relief that the ordeal was over.
Agreed. WTF, HH? They're human.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,678
- malice aforethought. I assume much of the deliberation is whether this was proven. As we know, all motive in this case is hearsay, so I can see not all members of the jury agreeing that there was malice aforethought, i.e. that AH picked up OL that night not intending to kill him.
 
 
FWIW--the "deliberation and reflection" required for "premeditation" doesn't have to be lengthy.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
25,010
OilCanShotTupac said:
Agreed. WTF, HH? They're human.
 
Obviously, it's more important how they actually carry out their duties than how they come across. It was just a "nails on the chalkboard" kind of thing.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
joe dokes said:
 
FWIW--the "deliberation and reflection" required for "premeditation" doesn't have to be lengthy.
 
Oh, I understand that.  But even that seems to be circumstantial in this case right?  I would argue (if I were a juror) that the multiple shots indicate a moment of premeditation (aka even if there is some doubt the first shot was premeditated he could have stopped shooting the gun).  But I can see it causing a lot of deliberation, I can see them not agreeing, and just moving on to atrocity.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,678
smastroyin said:
 
Oh, I understand that.  But even that seems to be circumstantial in this case right?  I would argue (if I were a juror) that the multiple shots indicate a moment of premeditation (aka he could have stopped shooting the gun).  But I can see it causing a lot of deliberation, I can see them not agreeing, and just moving on to atrocity.
 
*Everything* is circumstantial in this case.  But I agree, atrocity was an easier path. Multiple shots at close range.
 

Kevin Youkulele

wishes Claude Makelele was a Red Sox
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2006
3,460
San Diego
maufman said:
 
The MA murder statute has always struck me as arbitrary. It's the rare killing that doesn't involve "extreme atrocity"; to avoid it, you almost have to take care in planning the act -- which, of course, constitutes premeditation. I'd be all in favor of eliminating the distinction between M1 and M2, having a single offense and a single punishment (mandatory life without parole), but that's a whole other discussion.
M2 is essentially for a quasi-unintentional killing where there's something that elevates it above manslaughter - e.g., transferred intent or extreme indifference to human life, a.k.a. gross recklessness or an "abandoned and malignant heart" in the hoary language of old cases.  It could also fit the situation where, say, someone overreacts to a trifling provocation by immediately shooting the person in the head, without more.  Road rage type killings (intentionally running someone off the road and thereby causing death, without any time for deliberation) could also qualify.  These are mostly not classic murder scenarios.  I agree that most things that a layperson thinks of as murder will be M1 under MA law.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
9,285
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Thanks for all the thanks, everyone, but this thread was enjoyable and informative because of all the participation, questions, opinions, and debates on the issues.  (I posted a lot, but quantity ain't always quality.)
 
Just got out of a depo, so I'm listening to the proceedings now.  Very curious about the juror Q+A.  (Hopefully I can find it in the stream.)
 
For those of you who asked, MA appellate law/process is another step further removed from my experience.  However, generally speaking the defense must file an appeal, but the defendant has the automatic right to that appeal, should they choose to file one.   This automatic ability to file an appeal does not mean that the appeal has any teeth to it.  Normally, issues on appeal in a criminal case are limited to what you can think of as "significant legal mistakes," i.e., did the judge allow something to happen that tainted the trial in a way that made the whole trial fundamentally unfair for the defendant?  The appellate court will NOT revisit the facts, or second guess the jury (e.g., make a finding that the jury should have decided there was no gun, make a finding that the jury ought to have found witness X to be unbelievable).  The appellate court will also afford the judge a good deal of "discretion" for "close calls" in an otherwise clean trial. The appellate court will also allow some latitude for the trial court to "fix" or "cure" problems at trial by instructing the jury to ignore something that just happened.  
 
FWIW, I didn't see anything truly egregious in the trial, but MA law may explicitly prohibit certain things I'd otherwise not pick up on.  I thought Garsh was slightly pro-defense on her calls (meaning less issues on appeal.)  She also gave some instructions (expert witnesses) immediately after the witness testified, which further limits the issues an appellate court might consider.  The only thing that immediately springs to mind is the Glock expert testimony (which was perhaps "cured" or fixed for the jury), and the issue of turning over the enhanced photos of the home surveillance system to the defense.  Take this all with a grain of salt.  The defense may be able to put together a good appellate argument. 
 
IMO, Victim Impact statements are understandable in theory.  I don't know about their value for the sentencing judge - do they help in any way?  Do we sentence someone more harshly, if they have more (and more articulate) relatives?  They're often painful to hear (in many ways). (Half the time I wish they didn't exist, or that they had to be made through an attorney.)  I often wonder if people really feel the things they say, or rely on cultural tropes.  For example, I have never, ever, heard a speck of self-criticism in any VIS.  No matter who the victim is, they're always salt of the earth, loved by children, hard working, devoted to their parents, siblings, co-workers, a great person who will always be missed, etc.  (Not suggesting we sentence more lightly for harming a disagreeable person, but really, do idealized statements about the victim help anyone in any way?)
 

Preacher

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
1,635
Vicenza, Italy
Rovin Romine said:
IMO, Victim Impact statements are understandable in theory.  I don't know about their value for the sentencing judge - do they help in any way?  Do we sentence someone more harshly, if they have more (and more articulate) relatives?  They're often painful to hear (in many ways). (Half the time I wish they didn't exist, or that they had to be made through an attorney.)  I often wonder if people really feel the things they say, or rely on cultural tropes.  For example, I have never, ever, heard a speck of self-criticism in any VIS.  No matter who the victim is, they're always salt of the earth, loved by children, hard working, devoted to their parents, siblings, co-workers, a great person who will always be missed, etc.  (Not suggesting we sentence more lightly for harming a disagreeable person, but really, do idealized statements about the victim help anyone in any way?)
 
I think sometimes they are helpful.  We do sworn testimony in sentencing so if a victim or family member wants to make a statement he/she is subject to cross examination.  It also gives the defense the opportunity to counter anything the victim or family member claims in his/her statement.  I have seen sexual assault victims claim during setencing that they don't want the accused to go to jail or that they weren't greatly impacted by the offense.  I guess if it gives some kind of closure to the victim's family, it makes sense to allow them an opportunity to speak and feel like they impacted the process in some way.
 

hittery

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 13, 2005
8,313
Windsor, CT
As usual, I missed the good part. It's very sad all around, except for the fact that this seemed to be a very fairly conducted trial. The judge was always extremely well-prepared, and her rulings were very fair. The attorneys on each side were very different in style, but both did a very good job at the end of the day. But I take no pleasure in witnessing the fall of a young man with a future that none of us could ever imagine, squandering it all by killing another young man whose future was not as bright. It's tragic.

Man, I use the word "very" a lot.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
12,979
Oh Boy. Does he ever say anything that's not stupid?
 
https://twitter.com/BrandonSpikes51/status/588351339945562112
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
9,285
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Just watched the jury interview.  I didn't see the "giggle fest" myself - I saw a bonded group who just finished something difficult.  They kept private deliberations private.  They did laugh about things, but it seemed more of a release of pressure.  I don't think they were frivolous about anything. 
 
Big points for the jury were AH knowing about the time of OL's death (talking to Kraft and the police) and the .22 being linked through serial numbers to the gun sold in FL.   They also felt Kraft's testimony was very important.  And how AH acted on video afterward.  The jury found that the home video showed a gun in AH's hand at some point in time - but it wasn't a part of their decision.  PCP defense given no credibility.  Post-decision the jury thinks that knowing about Alexander Bradley's shooting and the Boston double homicide would have further confirmed their decision.  
 
No firm answers on SJ destroying evidence or lack of a murder weapon weighing in the deliberations.  
 
***
PS - Hittery, you can view and rewind this feed: http://www.myfoxboston.com/category/267951/aaron-hernandez-livestream
 
Jury interview is around 3:35 or so.  
 

uncannymanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
6,039
Boston --> NYC --> LA --> NYC
Rovin Romine said:
Thanks for all the thanks, everyone, but this thread was enjoyable and informative because of all the participation, questions, opinions, and debates on the issues.  (I posted a lot, but quantity ain't always quality.)
Very true, but you happened to provide an immense amount of both. TYVM.
 

mauidano

Mai Tais for everyone!
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2006
27,386
Maui
NortheasternPJ said:
Oh Boy. Does he ever say anything that's not stupid?
 
https://twitter.com/BrandonSpikes51/status/588351339945562112
Waiting on the Pouncey brothers tweets.  ANYONE, NFL players or not who question this verdict obviously wasn't paying attention.  An evil human being who deserves to isolated in a prison cell for the rest of his meaningless existence. NO redeeming value at all.  
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
9,285
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Preacher said:
 
I think sometimes they are helpful.  We do sworn testimony in sentencing so if a victim or family member wants to make a statement he/she is subject to cross examination.  It also gives the defense the opportunity to counter anything the victim or family member claims in his/her statement.  I have seen sexual assault victims claim during setencing that they don't want the accused to go to jail or that they weren't greatly impacted by the offense.  I guess if it gives some kind of closure to the victim's family, it makes sense to allow them an opportunity to speak and feel like they impacted the process in some way.
 
Very good points.   I've never dealt with a VIS in a sexual assault case (I've only tried a handful).  When the VIS is optional, I suppose it really depends on the motivation of the victims/relatives.  (For example, VISs in burglaries are by and large, tedious and awful to endure.  Did you know the victim felt violated?  And now feels unsafe?)   
 
I suppose I was thinking more of VIS in murders and/or mandatory sentencing cases; when I posted, I was playing the AH VISs in the background.  
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
24,824
Southwestern CT
NortheasternPJ said:
Oh Boy. Does he ever say anything that's not stupid?
 
https://twitter.com/BrandonSpikes51/status/588351339945562112
 
It's probably inevitable that he eventually explains that he was trying to be funny, because after OJ he just expected a celebrity like AH to walk no matter how guilty he was.  Then he'll thank the jury for their service and slink off.
 
Or he'll double down and re-emphasize his idiocy.  One of those two.
 

richgedman'sghost

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2006
1,317
ct
Harry Hooper said:
 
Obviously, it's more important how they actually carry out their duties than how they come across. It was just a "nails on the chalkboard" kind of thing.
Gee HH, give the jury the break.  Just try to relax and try not to be so hard on them. The jury  are just ending a period of extreme thought and deliberation. It is just a coping mechanism. They are only being human. I wonder how you would react if you were put in their position.
 

hunter05

Member
SoSH Member
May 29, 2006
6,789
Hokkaido
Average Reds said:
 
It's probably inevitable that he eventually explains that he was trying to be funny, because after OJ he just expected a celebrity like AH to walk no matter how guilty he was.  Then he'll thank the jury for their service and slink off.
 
Or he'll double down and re-emphasize his idiocy.  One of those two.
 
If I were to guess, based on his other tweets, he might have been, however inarticulately, expressing confusion over how AH was found guilty, but guys like Darren Wilson, Zimmerman, or the officer responsible for the death of Eric Garner walk. Of course, I'm also very tired and might be giving Spikes far too much credit.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
9,285
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Average Reds said:
 
It's probably inevitable that he eventually explains that he was trying to be funny, because after OJ he just expected a celebrity like AH to walk no matter how guilty he was.  Then he'll thank the jury for their service and slink off.
 
Or he'll double down and re-emphasize his idiocy.  One of those two.
 
Yep.  I've always disliked the bare bones "I'm confused about blah blah blah" type of critical statement.  As opposed to genuine confusion, this type of thing implies the speaker has some knowledge of the facts and has perceived some incongruence in how those facts fit into a greater structure.  It lets one imply there's a valid intellectual/logical criticism/incongruity which has produced an understandable emotional reaction.  Except guess what?  You don't have to say what the incongruity is, so you never run the risk of being called on it.  Perfect safety hatch.  
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,678
Rovin Romine said:
 
Very good points.   I've never dealt with a VIS in a sexual assault case (I've only tried a handful).  When the VIS is optional, I suppose it really depends on the motivation of the victims/relatives.  (For example, VISs in burglaries are by and large, tedious and awful to endure.  Did you know the victim felt violated?  And now feels unsafe?)   
 
I suppose I was thinking more of VIS in murders and/or mandatory sentencing cases; when I posted, I was playing the AH VISs in the background.  
 
The fact that everyone thinks I'm an asshole (no one gives a statement because the only the only impact is "I'm glad he got killed")  shouldn't mean my assailant gets a lower sentence for the same crime committed against John Q. Not-Asshole.  YMMV.
 

mauidano

Mai Tais for everyone!
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2006
27,386
Maui
AH will appeal obviously but sooner than later with civil suits pending and a looming second murder trial he's about out of cash.  He'll be looking for a Public Defender.  His assets were frozen, what about the house?  Does SJ still live there with their kid?  I don't see her moving back in with her family anytime soon.
 
As for he legal issues, what are they?
 
I'll hang up and wait.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.