Aaron Hernandez Trial (Odin Lloyd)

[Kull]

 
With the caveat I have only watched spottily, I can say that neither side seems to have distinguished itself as "great."  I'd say, overall, that they both seem "solid enough" with what they have to work with.  Pros and Cons.  
 
(Also, my personal preferences on how to do things certainly aren't all attorneys would do things - how they would "play to their own strengths.")
 
Right now the facts seem to strongly favor the prosecution.  In a case with a wide array of evidence, the prosecution diminishes the risks of flaws in any one piece of evidence or one witness.   So, while key witnesses could still implode and lose the case (for either side), we don't seem to be in a position where a single brilliant cross or impeachment or argument is going to radically shift the momentum of the trial. 

 
I haven't watched the whole thing, but to me the prosecution is executing the "Woody Hayes principle" perfectly. There aren't any deep balls, it's all 3 plays for a first down, rinse, repeat, and keep piling up the points. They are laying everything down, all the pieces are tying together, while the alternative explanations (even when offered) look fragile and disconnected in comparison. If the objective is to remove a reasonable doubt, they certainly seem to be doing it. FWIW, I'm not impartial since Bill McCauley is my cousin and one of the finer people you could ever hope to meet. Loving his work here.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

So HRB last page deemed the prosecutors inept and the defense great and AH should be ready to sign with the Ravens in time for training camp.

Seems based upon your recent posts that may not be the case.

What's your opinion now of the two legal teams?

My entent of following this trial has been RR's amazing recaps. Thank you sir. They don't seem either elite or incompetent in the courtroom based on RR's reporting. Hard to say without being there every day though.

I'm playing a juror here about as impartially as I possibly can. If I were actually in the pool I'd have to state that I am a terrible candidate as you would have to be a damn fool to allow this murderer to walk.

Trying to keep impartial I'm still awaiting the "Ah ha!" moment which to me is on the prosecution to deliver as it is their burden to do so. Until then i still feel the celebrity of the case favors the defense as it currently stands.

 

[Kull]

Trying to keep impartial I'm still awaiting the "Ah ha!" moment which to me is on the prosecution to deliver as it is their burden to do so. Until then i still feel the celebrity of the case favors the defense as it currently stands.

 
This is pretty damning:
 

Apparently the prosecution wants to introduce a police-recorded video of AH in the police parking lot after his arrest/detention.  On the video AH sits in a car with his attorney.  AH takes apart his cell phone and calls Ernest Wallace on another phone.  I didn't see the video, but that can't look good under any circumstances.  The prosecution will say it shows "guilty mind" an an attempt to destroy evidence.  The defense will say it's a cautious citizen who has been railroaded and who wants to protect private information.  The jury will see a murder suspect who is stripping down his cellphone in a police parking lot, then using another phone (traceable? not traceable?) to call a fellow murder suspect.  The phone call isn't that bad - but in conjunction with the stripping/dismantling of AH's other/standard phone, it looks awful. 

 

 
The prosecution should be able to establish the timeline of the calls coming in to Hernandez's girlfriend (after which she's filmed with the black trash bag, and the sudden need to borrow her sister's car to go to the bank to get money to pay the housekeepers (wonder how and when they were next paid?)), immediately after which Hernandez destroys his phone on police video cam. Good luck concocting a believable alternate story to explain that.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

 
This is pretty damning:
 
 
The prosecution should be able to establish the timeline of the calls coming in to Hernandez's girlfriend (after which she's filmed with the black trash bag, and the sudden need to borrow her sister's car to go to the bank to get money to pay the housekeepers (wonder how and when they were next paid?)), immediately after which Hernandez destroys his phone on police video cam. Good luck concocting a believable alternate story to explain that.

I saw this video and as the defense argued.....AH certainly didn't "destroy" the phone. His actions was calm and as if the battery died so he removed it and borrowed his attorneys phone just as you or I would borrow a friends if our phone had died. There was no "destroying" as was intimated.

 

[ManhattanRedSox]

Looks like there's some fireworks between the judge and the prosecution re: introducing OL's phone texts, or letting OL's sister testify that she sent or received texts from OL.  
 
While we don't know what happened at sidebar, I had mentioned earlier in the case that while OL's texts were presumptively out, there was always a chance they could be coming in later.   Also, that their associated data (the texting sans the language of the texts themselves) could/should probably come in. 
 
We do know that after the sidebar, the defense was apparently willing to stipulate that OL was alive up to the point that he sent his last text (3:30 AM).  The state didn't want to stipulate to that without considering the issue. 
 
Hard to say how important this is without knowing the alternative to the stipulation.  However, since the stipulation is favored by the defense, one can assume that a) the state can introduce the stipulated information anyway, and b) the way that they'd introduce that is potentially more damaging than the stipulation itself.  

So ESPN is reporting (God help us), that apparently the judge has changed her mind and now the text messages are admissable as long as the prosecution does not ask about the content of the messages or Lloyd's sister's reaction to receiving them.  Not even close to a lawyer but, this doesn't appear good for 'ole #81

 

[JimBoSox9]

Charlie Pierce wrote a column for Grantland on the trial, and it contains good bits both about the media coverage and the prosecuter's history with the judge.
 
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/aaron-hernandez-odin-lloyd-new-england-patriots-trial-murder/

 

[Shelterdog]

So ESPN is reporting (God help us), that apparently the judge has changed her mind and now the text messages are admissable as long as the prosecution does not ask about the content of the messages or Lloyd's sister's reaction to receiving them.  Not even close to a lawyer but, this doesn't appear good for 'ole #81

 
The text messages themselves or the fact that text messages got sent?  Because if the jury gets to look at the text of a message that says "with NFL" at about 3 in the morning (I couldn't quickly find the actual text or time it was sent) then that's a really bad fact for A. A. Ron no matter what questions the prosecutor is allowed to ask about it.

 

[DaughtersofDougMirabelli]

The text messages themselves or the fact that text messages got sent?  Because if the jury gets to look at the text of a message that says "with NFL" at about 3 in the morning (I couldn't quickly find the actual text or time it was sent) then that's a really bad fact for A. A. Ron no matter what questions the prosecutor is allowed to ask about it.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

Charlie Pierce wrote a column for Grantland on the trial, and it contains good bits both about the media coverage and the prosecuter's history with the judge.
 
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/aaron-hernandez-odin-lloyd-new-england-patriots-trial-murder/

Read that this morning and I'm pretty fascinated at the lack of attention it's getting. Ever here at SOSH theres only a few of us active in the thread.

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

This is one of those situations where it seems difficult for the jury NOT to figure out that there's something pretty suggestive that they aren't being allowed to see.  Even if they try not to let it impact their thinking, I find it hard to believe that it would not shade them away from reasonable doubt--they know there are things that they don't know, and if they have a gut feeling that they are bad for the defense, then that could influence them if they would otherwise be unsure whether the prosecution has made its case past the reasonable doubt threshold.
 
I'm just speculating on jury psychology though - I'd love to hear thoughts from anyone who's been a juror when a judge has said not to speculate about something that's clearly being only partially given to them.

 

[Rovin Romine]

This is one of those situations where it seems difficult for the jury NOT to figure out that there's something pretty suggestive that they aren't being allowed to see.  Even if they try not to let it impact their thinking, I find it hard to believe that it would not shade them away from reasonable doubt--they know there are things that they don't know, and if they have a gut feeling that they are bad for the defense, then that could influence them if they would otherwise be unsure whether the prosecution has made its case past the reasonable doubt threshold.
 
I'm just speculating on jury psychology though - I'd love to hear thoughts from anyone who's been a juror when a judge has said not to speculate about something that's clearly being only partially given to them.

 
I think you're right.  Anecdote; I once tried an aggravated battery.  The very intoxicated victim was slashed across the face with a broken glass at a bar (a nice place I went to every now and then, oddly enough.)  There was a real question as to who slashed him, and whether it was in self defense - i.e., the victim started a fight with the slasher.  As part of the defense, I wanted to establish the victim had a long running feud with my client's family.  
 
The judge ruled I couldn't get into some particulars about the feud, but could go into the fact there was one and extent of the witnesses bias.  So, it's been awhile, but the cross went something like this.  My client's younger brother had done something with or to the victim when they were all in their late teens.  We weren't going to characterize it beyond "something happened."  Prior to that they were all friends.  After that they weren't friends.  It was pretty bad.  The victim wasn't being childish about his feelings.  "The Event" resulted in a nickname the victim was still called years afterward.  Everyone found out and the victim was socially humiliated.  The victim hated my client and his brother because of this and freely admitted his hatred to anyone who asked.  The victim actually left Miami for years partially because of what happened.  When he returned, he found the story was still told by his social circle and no one had forgotten the nickname.  He'd clearly like to see my client similarly humiliated.  Who wouldn't?  Earlier that night when the parties ran into each other at the bar, the intoxicated victim tried to take off his shirt and pick a fight with my client's brother and had to be restrained.   The people who were with the victim remembered and teased him about the event and started calling him "that name."  Maybe partially because he had taken his shirt off.  So he drank some more.  We agreed it was completely understandable this would make the victim feel exceptionally angry.  I mean, it was completely humiliating.  It's nothing that could go away easily.  Partially because there was even a *photograph* of part of the event.  The victim was known as the guy who. . . OBJECTION (screams the prosecutor.)
 
Thank you, Ms. Prosecutor.   Jury never heard what happened.  They acquitted my client and then stuck around afterward because they wanted to ask me what the mysterious event was.  Apparently there was rampant speculation.  Some of it much juicer than anything I could have made up. 
 
PS - my story illustrates a "jury can't hear but will speculate" moment that benefitted the defense.  In the AH, I believe it will strongly benefit the prosecution.  Even though the Judge will instruct the jury the text's content can't enter their decision making process, the jury still needs to construct a narrative of what occurred.  For example, they have to ask themselves if the texting evidence itself is believable and how it fits into the timeline.  The Judge's hope is that the jury will say "Hey, data re: the text messages, but we can't speculate on what they said."  The reality is that the jury will assign some significance to the empty text messages, even just to spitball while they're discussing the issue.  The Judge can't police the jury deliberations.  

 

[OCST]

dude, you gotta tell us what the nickname was now.

 

[Rovin Romine]

So, back to the trial. 
 
Haven't listened today but there's apparently been a lot of important testimony. 
 

• A .22 cal gun was found nearby outside (not the murder weapon).  
• .22 ammo was found in AH's house
• Some fingerprint testimony (were OL's fingerprints found in the Altima? or are they building up to that testimony?)  Apparently Sultan did a fingerprint cross.  Often those can be interesting if you've never seen one.   Didn't watch it, but in general the bottom line is that fingerprint evidence isn't often nearly as convincing or reliable as you think it would be.  However, there's a point beyond which it's very reliable.  Yet, even when reliable fingerprint evidence may not logically establish all that much, since objects can be moved and fingerprints don't have timestamps showing when they were made.
• Housecleaners saw a black automatic pistol in AH's house (not inconsistent with a .45?)
• Housecleaners also saw a smaller silver gun, seemingly consistent with the .22 found nearby. 

 
Testimony resumes at 2pm.  Go to the first post for a live feed, plus a link to a live twitter update. 

 

[Rovin Romine]

dude, you gotta tell us what the nickname was now.

 
Wouldn't want to ruin the fun.  Actually, the nickname wasn't itself so very creative - it was the fact that it was used to refer to "the event" that everyone knew about.  

 

[epraz]

Dude, you gotta tell us what the event was.

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

Do we know if the basis for not letting the sister testify about her reaction to the texts out of an indirect hearsay concern, or based on a determination that it was too unfairly prejudicial (under the MA analog of federal rule 403)?

 

[crystalline]

You can't tell that story and not tell us the event.

Hmm. Late teens, friendship ended, resulted in nickname, associated with taking his shirt off. Speculation: victim got drunk, got naked ... And everyone saw he had only one ball. Or a micropenis. And the nickname was "Shorty". Close?



As for AH, Lloyd's text of "I'm with NFL. Just so you know" was all over Boston media. Maybe they found 12 jurors who knew nothing about the case at all but I'd guess that in the lunch room someone's going to say what the text contained, at least to a few jurors. Or am I being too presumptuous about people's knowledge of sports scandal?

 

[Rovin Romine]

Do we know if the basis for not letting the sister testify about her reaction to the texts out of an indirect hearsay concern, or based on a determination that it was too unfairly prejudicial (under the MA analog of federal rule 403)?

 
It's all a little weird to me, honestly.  Clearly there's an argument that "NFL" is hearsay, if offered to show OL was with AH.  (Also, confrontation clause.)  If offered for the effect on the sister, I don't see how it's relevant.  
 
***
To look at this backwards, the fight re: the texts seems to be over the idea that OL, when picked up, says he's with AH.  Therefore, the defense must think it has a chance of showing that OL wasn't picked up with AH.  Or that they can argue AH bailed on OL before he was killed.   But if I recall correctly, the OL text happened just after he was picked up, so how much does it narrow the window (meaning how close in time does it put AH to OL's death)?
 
I think it could be more interesting for the defense to argue that OL wasn't alive, or didn't have the phone when the texts were sent.  But they're apparently willing to stipulate to OL being alive based on the text times.  

 

[Rovin Romine]

You can't tell that story and not tell us the event.

Hmm. Late teens, friendship ended, resulted in nickname, associated with taking his shirt off. Speculation: victim got drunk, got naked ... And everyone saw he had only one ball. Or a micropenis. And the nickname was "Shorty". Close?

 
Good reasoning!  Close.  But think worse.  What's the most embarrassing thing you could imagine being photographed doing?  If you're a young latin heterosexual male.  Apparently there was a lot of alcohol involved.  (It really was 'move out of the city' type stuff.)
 
Also, I knew a guy with one ball.  (Allegedly).  His nickname was "cyclops."

 

[JimBoSox9]

 
Good reasoning!  Close.  But think worse.  What's the most embarrassing thing you could imagine being photographed doing?  If you're a young latin heterosexual male.  Apparently there was a lot of alcohol involved.  (It really was 'move out of the city' type stuff.)

I'm pretty sure that was the D storyline in "Outside Providence"

 

[Marciano490]

I'm pretty sure that was the D storyline in "Outside Providence"

 
And the B storyline in The Shield.

 

[Rovin Romine]

This aversion to "hearsay" (which isn't hearsay) is driving me nuts.  
 
Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.  Or to put it another way (roughly) a witness in court cannot repeat somebody else's statement (who isn't in court) for the purpose of trying to prove that whatever the statement is "about."  E.g., "Joe, who isn't here, told me that Bill, who is on trial for robbing a bank, came back into the house with a shotgun and a bag of money."  The prosecution can't use that sort of thing to try to prove that Bill robbed a bank.  Bill's got a right to have Joe actually in the trial, so Joe can be questioned. It's a "fundamental fairness" type of concept.    
 
So how does anyones' "speech" get into trial?  (Although hearsay can be written as well.)
There are a number of statements that aren't hearsay https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801
There are also a number of "exceptions" to hearsay.  They can get a bit tricky, but they're here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_804 
 
There are also some special exceptions for specific types of speech. 
 
As an example, witnesses are commonly allowed to testify as to what effect someone's statements had on them.  For example, if a witness says "Joe, who isn't here, said Bill, who is on trial, wanted to speak with me.  So I tried to call Bill on the phone."  In that sort of situation, the information is just to show what the witness did (called Bill), not that Bill actually wanted to speak with the witness.   
 
It's sort of subtle, but if you try cases (deal with hearsay/non-hearsay/hearsay exceptions a lot) it's pretty easy to get a grasp on how to introduce common scenarios. 
 
Anyway, it seems like in this trial, I'm hearing this kind of questioning:
 
Q "Did you have a conversation with X?"
A "Yes"
Q "As a result of that conversation, did you iron some pants?"
A "Yes"
 
Except, guess what?  If it's hearsay, that formulation does not get you out of the hearsay box.  Meaning you can't "backdoor" hearsay by suggesting what the hearsay was without saying it verbatim.  This is also called "inferential hearsay."  
 
However, the example above is not "inadmissible hearsay" - the conversation is being offered to explain the action the witness took - ironing the pants.  (It's also leading, but that's another matter.) 
 
Anyway, instead of the tap dancing, you can just ask, "Did X ask you to iron some pants?"  
A "Yes."
Q "Did you?"
A "Yes, I did."
(Which is also sort of leading.)
 
So:  
Q "Did X ask you to do anything?"
A "Yes, he asked me to iron some pants."
Q "And did you?"
A "Yes."

 

[Rovin Romine]

I'm pretty sure that was the D storyline in "Outside Providence"

 
 

 
And the B storyline in The Shield.

 
Not familiar with either.   I never saw the photo itself, but everyone was acting like it was real. 

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

What was the basis for excluding the contents of the texts.  Articles aren't clear -- they say only "prejudicial."  Was it excluded as hearsay, or because the judge found it was unduly prejudicial?  If the former -- and this is a pretty technical point but interesting -- I think the text would have come in in most jurisdictions.  Mass appears not to recognize "present sense impressions," which most other jurisdictions recognize, and this seems pretty close.  It also seems pretty close to a "dying declaration," but I guess the judge (if she kept it out as inadmissible hearsay) must have ruled there wasn't enough evidence that he fully understood he was going to be killed when he made the text. 

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

This aversion to "hearsay" (which isn't hearsay) is driving me nuts.  
 
Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.  Or to put it another way (roughly) a witness in court cannot repeat somebody else's statement (who isn't in court) for the purpose of trying to prove that whatever the statement is "about."  E.g., "Joe, who isn't here, told me that Bill, who is on trial for robbing a bank, came back into the house with a shotgun and a bag of money."  The prosecution can't use that sort of thing to try to prove that Bill robbed a bank.  Bill's got a right to have Joe actually in the trial, so Joe can be questioned. It's a "fundamental fairness" type of concept.    
 

 
It's been a long time since I've known anything about the hearsay rule, but one question, which I guess is kind of esoteric, but just because I'm curious how it works in real life.
 
Does hearsay turn on whether or not the witness is or isn't in court to give testimony?  I thought what matters is whether or not the statement was made out of court.  Usually, it wouldn't matter, because if Joe is in court, he can testify in court to the same fact that he told Bill.  But that doesn't mean his prior statement to the same effect comes in, for example to bolster his testimony (e.g., I said it contemporaneously with the event too, so therefore it must be true).  In most cases, a hearsay exception will probably apply in this case if the question whether he said it previously is relevant to anything, and I think there may even be one if there is any kind of assertion that the witness made up the statement for court.  If the witness testifies inconsistently with his out of court statement, then the out of court statement comes in as impeachment, but does it come for its truth as well?  I seem to think it does, but I'm not sure.  Either way the jury would hear it, but it might matter for purposes of getting your case to the jury.  
 
For example, imagine the only evidence that the prosecution has Bill was at the scene of the crime is that Joe texted his friend, "I saw Bill at the library this afternoon."  Joe takes the stand and testifies that he did not see Bill at the library on the day in question.  Joe's text can come in as impeachment, to show that Bill is a liar.  But can it also now be used for its truth -- to carry the prosecution's burden that Bill was in fact at the scene of the crime?

 

[Rovin Romine]

What was the basis for excluding the contents of the texts.  Articles aren't clear -- they say only "prejudicial."  Was it excluded as hearsay, or because the judge found it was unduly prejudicial?  If the former -- and this is a pretty technical point but interesting -- I think the text would have come in in most jurisdictions.  Mass appears not to recognize "present sense impressions," which most other jurisdictions recognize, and this seems pretty close.  It also seems pretty close to a "dying declaration," but I guess the judge (if she kept it out as inadmissible hearsay) must have ruled there wasn't enough evidence that he fully understood he was going to be killed when he made the text. 

 
Here's the MA evidence code - nicely annotated as well.  http://www.mass.gov/courts/case-legal-res/guidelines/mass-guide-to-evidence/article-viii-hearsay.html
 
Also worth noting that MA does not have the 807 residual exception, e.g., https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_807

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

 
It's been a long time since I've known anything about the hearsay rule, but one question, which I guess is kind of esoteric, but just because I'm curious how it works in real life.
 
Does hearsay turn on whether or not the witness is or isn't in court to give testimony?  I thought what matters is whether or not the statement was made out of court.  Usually, it wouldn't matter, because if Joe is in court, he can testify in court to the same fact that he told Bill.  But that doesn't mean his prior statement to the same effect comes in, for example to bolster his testimony (e.g., I said it contemporaneously with the event too, so therefore it must be true).  In most cases, a hearsay exception will probably apply in this case if the question whether he said it previously is relevant to anything, and I think there may even be one if there is any kind of assertion that the witness made up the statement for court.  If the witness testifies inconsistently with his out of court statement, then the out of court statement comes in as impeachment, but does it come for its truth as well?  I seem to think it does, but I'm not sure.  Either way the jury would hear it, but it might matter for purposes of getting your case to the jury.  
 
For example, imagine the only evidence that the prosecution has Bill was at the scene of the crime is that Joe texted his friend, "I saw Bill at the library this afternoon."  Joe takes the stand and testifies that he did not see Bill at the library on the day in question.  Joe's text can come in as impeachment, to show that Bill is a liar.  But can it also now be used for its truth -- to carry the prosecution's burden that Bill was in fact at the scene of the crime?

It's complicated.  The federal rules say a prior inconsistent statement can be used substantively only if the declarant himself contradicts the statement on the stand (not true in your example because Joe is a dead victim I think) and the declarant's statement was made under penalty of perjury in some kind of proceeding (trial, deposition, etc.).  States may be more or less liberal than the federal rules - these are not constitutional issues.
 
There is also an unavailability exception that permits substantive use of a prior statement but again under the federal rules it needs to have been testimony subject to cross or the equivalent.

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
It's been a long time since I've known anything about the hearsay rule, but one question, which I guess is kind of esoteric, but just because I'm curious how it works in real life.
 
Does hearsay turn on whether or not the witness is or isn't in court to give testimony?  I thought what matters is whether or not the statement was made out of court.  Usually, it wouldn't matter, because if Joe is in court, he can testify in court to the same fact that he told Bill.  But that doesn't mean his prior statement to the same effect comes in, for example to bolster his testimony (e.g., I said it contemporaneously with the event too, so therefore it must be true).  In most cases, a hearsay exception will probably apply in this case if the question whether he said it previously is relevant to anything, and I think there may even be one if there is any kind of assertion that the witness made up the statement for court.  If the witness testifies inconsistently with his out of court statement, then the out of court statement comes in as impeachment, but does it come for its truth as well?  I seem to think it does, but I'm not sure.  Either way the jury would hear it, but it might matter for purposes of getting your case to the jury.  
 
For example, imagine the only evidence that the prosecution has Bill was at the scene of the crime is that Joe texted his friend, "I saw Bill at the library this afternoon."  Joe takes the stand and testifies that he did not see Bill at the library on the day in question.  Joe's text can come in as impeachment, to show that Bill is a liar.  But can it also now be used for its truth -- to carry the prosecution's burden that Bill was in fact at the scene of the crime?

 
1. Depends.  Usually hearsay is hearsay, no matter if the "hearsay-utterer" is testifying in the same trial.  There are a number of exceptions that apply though - fellow officer rule and such.  Also, you'd have to analyze whether the hearsay would be bolstering the testimony of another witness.  Or if you're offering it to do so, or for another matter.  
 
2. Depends.  The general rule is no.  However in some jurisdictions, if the prior out of court statement was "sworn" testimony, and the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain/address the prior out of court statement, then yes, it can be offered for it's truth.  
 
Edit - scooped by youk

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

 
Good reasoning!  Close.  But think worse.  What's the most embarrassing thing you could imagine being photographed doing?  If you're a young latin heterosexual male.  Apparently there was a lot of alcohol involved.  (It really was 'move out of the city' type stuff.)
 
Also, I knew a guy with one ball.  (Allegedly).  His nickname was "cyclops."

 

 
??

 

[yep]

...I'd love to hear thoughts from anyone who's been a juror when a judge has said not to speculate about something that's clearly being only partially given to them.

 
I was on a jury tried by a clearly young and inexperienced prosecutor, with a similar scenario. 
 
Assault case. Witness for the prosecution was "jumped" from behind at some kind of dance/party event, and beaten badly. The victim claimed to have seen defendant taking a swing at him just before losing consciousness. Defendant claimed he was not even near that part of the party, and had a couple of friends to corroborate as witnesses. 
 
No motive was presented. Defense objected (successfully, after a sidebar with the judge) when prosecutor asked victim if he knew defendant. Defense objected (successfully again) when prosecutor asked the responding officer about his interviews/conversations with people at the scene. Some implication overall that there was some other "bigger" crime or legal issue from that night, possibly involving defendant. It felt like we were not at the "main" trial. 
 
In the jury room, opinion was unanimous that the defendant had been up to something no good, and that there was a lot more to the story than what we heard. Most thought he was involved somehow, but none of us were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the attacker. We acquitted, reluctantly. It was really frustrating, and we all kind of felt like the prosecution dropped the ball, and didn't give us enough to convict someone who was "probably" guilty. 

 

[SumnerH]

Also, I knew a guy with one ball.  (Allegedly).  His nickname was "cyclops."

 
This is the most subtle invocation of Godwin's law ever.

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
This is the most subtle invocation of Godwin's law ever.

 
And it's not even in the Lance Armstrong thread.

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
I was on a jury tried by a clearly young and inexperienced prosecutor, with a similar scenario. 
 
Assault case. Witness for the prosecution was "jumped" from behind at some kind of dance/party event, and beaten badly. The victim claimed to have seen defendant taking a swing at him just before losing consciousness. Defendant claimed he was not even near that part of the party, and had a couple of friends to corroborate as witnesses. 
 
No motive was presented. Defense objected (successfully, after a sidebar with the judge) when prosecutor asked victim if he knew defendant. Defense objected (successfully again) when prosecutor asked the responding officer about his interviews/conversations with people at the scene. Some implication overall that there was some other "bigger" crime or legal issue from that night, possibly involving defendant. It felt like we were not at the "main" trial. 
 
In the jury room, opinion was unanimous that the defendant had been up to something no good, and that there was a lot more to the story than what we heard. Most thought he was involved somehow, but none of us were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the attacker. We acquitted, reluctantly. It was really frustrating, and we all kind of felt like the prosecution dropped the ball, and didn't give us enough to convict someone who was "probably" guilty. 

 
Yep,
 
I have to say, this made my week.  Gives me some hope that people still try to follow the rule of law in our nation.  It's especially impressive if the jury had a sort of collective gut-feeling, or emotional bias against the defendant.
 
FWIW, the reason why the victim couldn't say how he knew the defendant was probably because it was prejudicial (although not necessarily criminal.)  It does sound a little weird though - the prosecution should have been able to get prior contact in somehow, even in the most vanilla/redacted form, since it goes to the victim's ability to identify his attacker. 
 
Also, those initial interviews done by the officer shouldn't have come in - those are clearly hearsay.  If the state wanted to subpoena those people and bring them in to tell their stories directly to the jury, the state could have.  
 
So don't sweat it - you guys did good.  

 

[Average Reds]

 
Good reasoning!  Close.  But think worse.  What's the most embarrassing thing you could imagine being photographed doing?  If you're a young latin heterosexual male.  Apparently there was a lot of alcohol involved.  (It really was 'move out of the city' type stuff.)
 
Also, I knew a guy with one ball.  (Allegedly).  His nickname was "cyclops."

 
The guy was blackout drunk and was photographed blowing another guy?  (Or getting blown?)
 
So .. the nickname was Moby Dick?  ("Thar she blows!")

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
The guy was blackout drunk and was photographed blowing another guy?  (Or getting blown?)
 
So .. the nickname was Moby Dick?  ("Thar she blows!")

 
Hot on the trail AR!  However, there's a a singular/plural issue that has to be applied to your theory.   (As it was applied to the more common form of the nickname/slur.)
 
(Also, some of the people in the photograph were African American.  Just to add that little racial tone as well.)

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

 
Yep,
 
I have to say, this made my week.  Gives me some hope that people still try to follow the rule of law in our nation.  It's especially impressive if the jury had a sort of collective gut-feeling, or emotional bias against the defendant.
 
FWIW, the reason why the victim couldn't say how he knew the defendant was probably because it was prejudicial (although not necessarily criminal.)  It does sound a little weird though - the prosecution should have been able to get prior contact in somehow, even in the most vanilla/redacted form, since it goes to the victim's ability to identify his attacker. 
 
Also, those initial interviews done by the officer shouldn't have come in - those are clearly hearsay.  If the state wanted to subpoena those people and bring them in to tell their stories directly to the jury, the state could have.  
 
So don't sweat it - you guys did good.  

Generally yes, but the judge may have been bending over backward to avoid "unfair prejudice" given what happened with the prior contact issue.  The judge could have instructed the victim to simply answer yes or no to the issue of whether he knew the defendant and told the prosecutor that the leash was going to be very tight on that line of questioning, but from yep's telling even that was not permitted.  Therefore, the judge may (wrongly) also not have let much else in from the folks the cop talked to either, absurd as it seems.
 
I agree that the jury did its job here, but I can't say the same for the judge.

 

[Monbo Jumbo]

I'm not particularly interested in the trial, but I do come in here for RR's amazing posts. 
 
Related - when I went to high school a classmate allegedly had undescended testicles. No one knew for sure - despite two sports per year being required.   He was the center on the football team, and wore his cup over his tighty whities.  He never showered on school grounds, he'd just get dressed after a football game and go home in his car pool smelling pretty bad.  He took a huge amount of abuse. It was sad. 

 

[Average Reds]

I'm not particularly interested in the trial, but I do come in here for RR's amazing posts. 
 
Related - when I went to high school a classmate allegedly had undescended testicles. No one knew for sure - despite two sports per year being required.   He was the center on the football team, and wore his cup over his tighty whities.  He never showered on school grounds, he'd just get dressed after a football game and go home in his car pool smelling pretty bad.  He took a huge amount of abuse. It was sad. 

 
I had a close friend who had the same issue and when it was discovered the abuse was so bad that he actually transferred to another school.  6th/7th grade kids are a bunch of little shits.

 

[Average Reds]

 
Hot on the trail AR!  However, there's a a singular/plural issue that has to be applied to your theory.   (As it was applied to the more common form of the nickname/slur.)
 
(Also, some of the people in the photograph were African American.  Just to add that little racial tone as well.)

 
The emerging details are a bit too uncomfortable, so that's as far as I am willing to go with this guessing game...

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
The emerging details are a bit too uncomfortable, so that's as far as I am willing to go with this guessing game...

 
Yeah.  I'm not joking when I say it was really "move to another city if your friends have seen this" stuff.   'Course, this is a reflection of various cultural phobias and prejudices, not any kind of personal or moral indictment of the persons involved.  FWIW, it was apparently all "consensual" in the moment.  Usual caveats about young drunken idiots apply.  
 
Late teens and early 20s types can be exceptionally cruel (and hypocritical in their cruelty).  I actually felt bad for the victim.  I'm also certain that he was lying through his teeth about what went down in the bar fight.  So no sleep lost. 

 

[Rovin Romine]

Generally yes, but the judge may have been bending over backward to avoid "unfair prejudice" given what happened with the prior contact issue.  The judge could have instructed the victim to simply answer yes or no to the issue of whether he knew the defendant and told the prosecutor that the leash was going to be very tight on that line of questioning, but from yep's telling even that was not permitted.  Therefore, the judge may (wrongly) also not have let much else in from the folks the cop talked to either, absurd as it seems.
 
I agree that the jury did its job here, but I can't say the same for the judge.

I completely agree re: the identification issue.  
 
However, I'm pretty sure the police witness shouldn't have been allowed to testify about who he interviewed, let alone what they said.  Beyond the hearsay/confrontation clause issues, it's basically bolstering the fact of the arrest through inferential hearsay.  "So what did you do after you interviewed those 20 eyewitnesses (none of whom are here today)?  Gosh, I arrested the defendant, of course."  (Depends on the facts, of course.)

 

[Jimbodandy]

 
Hot on the trail AR!  However, there's a a singular/plural issue that has to be applied to your theory.   (As it was applied to the more common form of the nickname/slur.)
 
(Also, some of the people in the photograph were African American.  Just to add that little racial tone as well.)

 
I give up trying to guess, but I'm strongly considering changing my Sons of Shoeless Joe nickname to "Chet Lemon Party".

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

I completely agree re: the identification issue.  
 
However, I'm pretty sure the police witness shouldn't have been allowed to testify about who he interviewed, let alone what they said.  Beyond the hearsay/confrontation clause issues, it's basically bolstering the fact of the arrest through inferential hearsay.  "So what did you do after you interviewed those 20 eyewitnesses (none of whom are here today)?  Gosh, I arrested the defendant, of course."  (Depends on the facts, of course.)

Oh, I'm not saying that the judge shouldn't have barred the cop's testimony--100% agree that it was hearsay.  My point was that the judge might have excluded the other interviewees from saying what they had personal knowledge of because of the overzealousness re: prior contact.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Oh, I'm not saying that the judge shouldn't have barred the cop's testimony--100% agree that it was hearsay.  My point was that the judge might have excluded the other interviewees from saying what they had personal knowledge of because of the overzealousness re: prior contact.

Gotcha.

 

[OCST]

 
Wouldn't want to ruin the fun.  Actually, the nickname wasn't itself so very creative - it was the fact that it was used to refer to "the event" that everyone knew about.  

TELL ME WHATS IN THE BOX

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

This is one of those situations where it seems difficult for the jury NOT to figure out that there's something pretty suggestive that they aren't being allowed to see.  Even if they try not to let it impact their thinking, I find it hard to believe that it would not shade them away from reasonable doubt--they know there are things that they don't know, and if they have a gut feeling that they are bad for the defense, then that could influence them if they would otherwise be unsure whether the prosecution has made its case past the reasonable doubt threshold.
 
I'm just speculating on jury psychology though - I'd love to hear thoughts from anyone who's been a juror when a judge has said not to speculate about something that's clearly being only partially given to them.

 
I was a juror once in a criminal trial, where a guy was alleged to have stolen a car.  There was a high speed chase and the car crashed and the guy ran away.  The accused was arrested in the neighborhood, hiding in some bushes, about 20 minutes later with some severe injuries.  He also was friends with the guy whose car was stolen.  The police offer who gave chase identified the accused as driving past him very fast in the parking lot where the car was stolen.  The cop was really nervous on the stand, and most the jurors believed his i.d. was suspect given his testimony that the reason his suspicions were aroused was that the stolen car drove past him very quickly.  Defense counsel conducted a pretty effective cross, all but getting the guy to admit that his i.d. was heavily influenced by the fact that they found the guy injured 20 minutes later.  It was a really effective cross, but nobody gave a shit, because the other evidence was pretty compelling.  
 
The prosecutor was pretty junior and green, and it seemed like they had given her a case that was very difficult to lose, but she couldn't stop leading her witnesses and it was very painful, because the judge kept sustaining objections.  We could hear pretty much everything at sidebar the first morning, and the defense counsel told the judge early on that the constant leading was putting him in a bad spat, because he was objecting 10 times an hour and looking like an asshole.  The judge took up his cause and started sustaining his own objections to leading, but it made what should have been 20 minute exams take like 2 hours.  (We told the bailiff that we could hear the sidebars during the first break, and that put an end to that.)  I was number 1 in the box, and so there wasn't much chance I was going to get out of having to sit unless one of the lawyers used a preemptory challenge on me or had me struck.  It was pretty clear to me that the prosecutor tried to have me excluded for cause, because I'm a lawyer, and she asked me a ton of questions trying to help me build a hardship case, and I helped her as much as I could without violating my oath, but the judge didn't buy it.  So, for a moment, she was my friend, but then when she didn't use a preemptory challenge on me, I was pissed.  I don't think I let it affect me though.
 
Anyway, the prosecutor was questioning the defendant's friend (the one whose car was stolen), who was a bit reluctant to testify but seemed honest.  He testified about how the defendant essentially coveted his car and knew where he kept the keys or something.   It was all going very well, until, at one point, she asked whether the defendant had sent him a message through facebook.  Defense counsel objected, and the judge excused us.  After about 20 minutes, the judge brought us back and instructed us to disregard the question and not speculate about why the question had been asked or what the answer would have been.  The prosecutor asked a couple more questions without objection, and then the judge called another break excused us again.  We were out about an hour, and eventually one of the other jurors brought up the facebook question, and once that happened it was off to the races with discussion about it.  Most were pretty confused about what it could mean, but there wasn't much hesitation in talking about it.  My assumption was that the defendant had apologized or something, and based on how fast the defense counsel objected, I assumed there had been a motion in limine or something.
 
The important part about the discussion, though, was that everyone pretty much assumed that the post must have been bad for the defense, since the prosecutor was the one who asked the question, and so everyone assumed we were being precluded from hearing something that would be inculpatory.  The judge brought us back and told us that after thinking about it more, he was going to declare a mistrial.  Outside the courthouse, the jurors all wanted to know why I thought it went down like that, and I explained my theory about the facebook thing, and they all seemed to think it made sense, and then they all thought it was kind of funny that the prosecutor had snatched a mistrial out of the jaws of victory, because we all were pretty much with her.  I looked on the docket and there was a plea shortly before the retrial.

 

[Reverend]

TELL ME WHATS IN THE BOX

 
But do they call me MacGregory the stone wall builder?

 

[Dewy4PrezII]

dude, you gotta tell us what the nickname was now.

snowball 

 

[Rovin Romine]

So today, (again recapping tweets) a third housekeeper testifies as to Shayanna Jenkins carrying a large black garbage bag out of the house on 6/18/13.  Apparently Jenkins never took out trash herself, so this was unusual.  
 
Following this was medical examiner(?) testimony about OL's body/clothing/autopsy. 
 
The live stream is here: http://www.wildabouttrial.com/trial_videos/aaron-hernandez-live-stream/
(There are probably others, but I keep using this one for no particular reason.  It's kind of a cheesy website, but it also has archived day by day trial footage.)
 
If you go to the link today, the prosecution shows surveillance video of SJ with the bag at 1:22:30.  There are multiple angles.  The bag seems heavy and seems to have some hard objects in it (rather than being a bag of only clothing, or something of the sort.)
 
***
As the trial goes on and the gaps in our coverage increase, it's hard to say for sure what's in or out of evidence re: the jury.  We know the prosecution has a text from AH to SJ which allegedly urges her to dispose of evidence (in a coded wink wink sort of way.)  I don't know if they've put it in front of the jury yet.  
 
I have to think that this is compelling video evidence.  I don't know how well the prosecution will be able to paint the overall picture of a conspiracy to destroy evidence.  However, they seem to have shown that AH had a large black gun (possibly a .45), and now they have a pretty plausible explanation as to how that gun may have left the residence.  It's still circumstantial evidence, but it pretty neatly fits the prosecution's theory.  
 
Do we know what evidence is in front of the jury that AH had a .45?  
 
There's that picture of him with a gun in his hand, but do we know if it's in evidence?  There's the testimony of the two housekeepers that they found a large black automatic handgun (consistent with a .45) in the house.  
 
What else?  (I'm pretty sure SJ's father's testimony that AH said he had a .45 is out.  I think there was also another picture of AH with a gun in his hand that's out.)  
 
***
In terms of the video, the defense could argue that in light of a police investigation, AH and SJ wanted to dispose of evidence of MJ possession and use.  Such could have lead to criminal charges, and could have damaged AH's contract/marketability/endorsements.  So while it's a sneaky/bad/illegal act, it's not actually dispositive as to the issue of whether AH had a .45 or or whether Jenkins tried to dispose of a .45.  

 

[Rovin Romine]

Also, Fraga https://twitter.com/BfragaHN retweeted that this is the fifth consecutive day of testimony that Shayanna has not been in court.  
 
Perhaps this is because once immunity was granted, the judge ruled Shayanna not be allowed to view the testimony in court?  
 
For trial watchers, the parties can invoke a rule requiring that potential witnesses not be able to sit in on the trial.  The idea is that the witnesses should not be influenced (in any way) by the testimony of the witnesses who have gone before them. (Although since the trial is televised and archived, there's not much one can practically do in terms of insulating witness testimony from one another.  Any witness who wants to violate the Court's order not to watch testimony could just lie about doing so on the stand. Plus, the attorney can't ask a question going to that issue unless they first have a good faith basis for doing so.)
 
Any which way, it's got to look somewhat bad to the jury that Shayanna (who clearly put herself out there early in the trial) is conspicuously absent when there's testimony about her disposing evidence.  In fact, if I was on defense, and Shayanna had been excluded by Court order, I'd ask for a special instruction from the judge explaining to the jury that her absence was ordered because, like other witnesses, she may (or may not) testify.  Or something to that effect.