Aaron Hernandez Trial (Odin Lloyd)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
First Witness:
 
Loren Gerew? Lloyd's employer.  
 
This is really starting with a whimper.  There are many ways to approach how you present evidence in a case - and there is no one right way.  There are, however *wrong* ways to do it.  Or, that's to say, ways that blunt the emotional impact of the case, ways that confuse the jury, ways that minimize the most important aspects of your case.  
 
It's early to weigh in on this issue, but the jury's attention is going to be at it's highest (they're not used to days of testimony).   You don't want to give the defense the opportunity to be able to do a lot early in the trial, but this still seems like something of a waste.  Especially after that horrendous opening. Why not call a family member that the defense can't attack?  
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Steve Dillard said:
Rovin

Getting close to opening the door to the "with NFL" text?
 
Well, please remember that the openings are not "evidence."  Meaning the jury can't officially decide anything based on what the attorneys say in opening - they have to decide off the facts in front of them.
 
That said, the defense attorney admitted that his client was with OL at the time of the murder.  The jury will remember that.  I'm not exactly sure how the state will prove that through evidence (or if both sides have stipulated that AH picked up OL the night of his death).   However it's established, if the defense isn't contesting (at trial) that AH was with OL on the night of his death, "with NFL" becomes pretty much meaningless.  
 
(Unless they're using the texts to establish time of death - which the prosecution can do without introducing the specific language of the texts.)
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
BigSoxFan said:
Rovin,

This has been said many times before but your breakdowns are awesome. My eyes normally glaze over when I start hearing legal talk but you distill everything very well. Thanks!
 
Thanks - it's sometimes at the price of strict accuracy though, so take everything I write with a grain of salt. 
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
jsinger121 said:
 
Matthew Kent, a 17-year-old high school senior, now on the stand. Was the runner who found Odin Lloyd's body.
 
 
And he's doing very well.  This is a smart choice for a first day witness by the state.  The state is using the kid to give a grand tour of the murder scene.  The defense really can't attack this kid and the jury's getting the feeling that this "really happened" and that normal people (a 17 year old kid) were involved.  And this happened in "everyone's" backyard.  (Or a relatively normal quasi-industrial site in a normal town.)  It's much better than calling the first responding officer (who can then be questioned about all sorts of things, depending on the defense strategy.) 
 
Also, the jury has a lot of women on it.  A nice kid in a tie who seems a little overwhelmed but it trying hard is someone they're going to sympathize with.  
 
I'm curious to see what the defense is going to do on cross.  They may "co-opt" him by asking further friendly questions about the layout.  We'll see.  
 

gryoung

Member
SoSH Member
Rovin Romine said:
 
Well, please remember that the openings are not "evidence."  Meaning the jury can't officially decide anything based on what the attorneys say in opening - they have to decide off the facts in front of them.
 
That said, the defense attorney admitted that his client was with OL at the time of the murder.  The jury will remember that.  I'm not exactly sure how the state will prove that through evidence (or if both sides have stipulated that AH picked up OL the night of his death).   However it's established, if the defense isn't contesting (at trial) that AH was with OL on the night of his death, "with NFL" becomes pretty much meaningless.  
 
(Unless they're using the texts to establish time of death - which the prosecution can do without introducing the specific language of the texts.)
 
Just curious here.  I take it you're an attorney.  What type of law do you practice and do you also teach law?
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Defense cross of Kent W2
 
They just kind of got right into it.  A lot of questions about the layout of the site.  Perhaps going toward police tampering?  Didn't think the cross was particularly effective in terms of establishing anything new or particular.  
 
In long trials juries tend to forget small details if everything is ho-hum.  On day 20 they don't care who established what street name that everyone agrees on anyway.  
 
However, what juries do in the beginning is to form opinions and evaluate.  If they get a good opening, they'll apply evidence to it.  Also, they'll start forming opinions about the attorneys.  So, as a defense attorney, you may not be able to establish evidence that goes to your defense.  There may not be holes to poke in the other side.  You can though, be professional and courteous and show you know what you're doing.  Additionally, if your defense is that your client is a good guy with no motive, you can't be too hostile or dismissive of a witness.  Here, the defense attorney wasn't hostile, but he apparently lost a chance to be human in front of the jury - show some sympathy for the kid.  He could also have set up the kid as a positive example of something he'd later use to contrast against the officers - how the kid didn't assume things, etc. 
 
However, everyone needs to be themselves - acts never work.  So I can't really ding the guy.  But I'd look at it as a missed opportunity to show the jury who you are on the first day, or at least kindly hint at a theme without manhandling a witness.
 

jcd0805

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
3,959
Florida
I know that openings are not evidence but I keep thinking of the Casey Anthony trial, Baez came out swinging with the allegations of incest with her dad and that he knew what happened with Kaylee yet at no point in the actual trial did he prove or even bring up any of that, yet the jurors interviewed all had suspicion of the dad based solely it seems on his opening.  I think opening statements mean way more than they should to a jury. 
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
gryoung said:
 
Just curious here.  I take it you're an attorney.  What type of law do you practice and do you also teach law?
 
I am an attorney. I practiced criminal defense for years.  I still do some, but at the moment most of my practice is commercial - agricultural, actually.  I don't teach law formally.  I have coached mock trial teams and trained/mentored attorneys.  For what it's worth, I think trying to teach someone to try cases (meaning helping them to actually improve in their own way, not trying to get them to conform to a theoretical standard) is probably the best way for the teacher to improve their own skills. So much of trial and relating to a jury is quirky human stuff which defies easy qualitative analysis and can resist formulaic approaches.  (That said, some of the standards are standards for a reason.)  
 

Alcohol&Overcalls

Member
SoSH Member
jcd0805 said:
I know that openings are not evidence but I keep thinking of the Casey Anthony trial, Baez came out swinging with the allegations of incest with her dad and that he knew what happened with Kaylee yet at no point in the actual trial did he prove or even bring up any of that, yet the jurors interviewed all had suspicion of the dad based solely it seems on his opening.  I think opening statements mean way more than they should to a jury. 
 
Yeah I highly doubt RR was minimizing the importance of the opening to the jury, where certainly primacy concepts dictate it has massive importance (and studies back that up) - instead he was using the rule that attorneys' arguments aren't evidence to address whether a door to otherwise-barred evidence had been opened.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
jcd0805 said:
I know that openings are not evidence but I keep thinking of the Casey Anthony trial, Baez came out swinging with the allegations of incest with her dad and that he knew what happened with Kaylee yet at no point in the actual trial did he prove or even bring up any of that, yet the jurors interviewed all had suspicion of the dad based solely it seems on his opening.  I think opening statements mean way more than they should to a jury. 
 
Ting.  Good example.  I know Baez (socially).  I thought his defense was brilliant.  Probably not something I'd personally do - everyone has their own style, and I can't fake his.
 
The opening gives the jury the story, or the skeleton, or the path, or the roadmap.  It's very very difficult to "win" a case in closing - meaning to recontextualize all of the evidence at the end of the trial.  Far easier to begin with the simple story, let the evidence sort of apply to it, and close showing how the evidence applied to it.  Sometimes you can (in defense on a criminal case) do a sort of "placeholder" opening, where you say "Pay attention to police mistakes, they're all over this case.  I'm not going to list them now because I don't want to tip my hand to the state.  But watch for those inconsistencies - I'll bring them out and we'll talk about them in the close."  (You have to be damn sure to use the word "inconsistent" in your crosses.)  Point is you want the jury thinking *as* the evidence rolls in during testimony.  
 

gryoung

Member
SoSH Member
Rovin Romine said:
 
I am an attorney. I practiced criminal defense for years.  I still do some, but at the moment most of my practice is commercial - agricultural, actually.  I don't teach law formally.  I have coached mock trial teams and trained/mentored attorneys.  For what it's worth, I think trying to teach someone to try cases (meaning helping them to actually improve in their own way, not trying to get them to conform to a theoretical standard) is probably the best way for the teacher to improve their own skills. So much of trial and relating to a jury is quirky human stuff which defies easy qualitative analysis and can resist formulaic approaches.  (That said, some of the standards are standards for a reason.)  
 
Thanks RR. 
 

jcd0805

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
3,959
Florida
Hmm I can't get the quote function to work but thanks for the reply RR.  I work for attorneys in the Panhandle, litigation which mostly settles so have been involved in very few trials but they absolutely fascinate me, thanks for your insight. 
 
I thought Jose came off a little buffoonish but I became just such a huge fan of Jeff Ashton so maybe that's why Jose really rubbed me the wrong way.  He definitely did the impossible though, it still irks me that girl got off.  Anyway I look forward to your analysis throughout the rest of this trial!
 

Tangled Up In Red

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2004
4,538
Bernal
Thanks, RR, for doing this. I hope you can continue throughout the trial.
The legal/trial perspective and insight adds great depth to understanding how this unfolds.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
RR,
I remember you or someone else thinking that Fee was hired for the investigation, and that the trial would be handled by a criminal defense attorney with more experience defending violent crimes. Are you surprised Fee is the one who did the opening statement?
He does have a certain hail-fellow-well-met avuncular uncle persona that might be useful.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
I was surprised he handled the opening. Didn't see it all, but I thought he struggled in the few highlights I saw. But its hard to pick up a few lines of an opening or close. It's really the type of speech that gains momentum as it goes and you can't pick out a line in the middle and feel the context. You need to see or read it all.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,483
The 718
Seeing lots of FB anger/disgust that "another murderer is going to walk." Any basis for this, other than hyperventilating from the Nancy Grace crowd, and the uncertainty inherent in any trial?
 

Caspir

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,886
He left an unlit joint next to the body with his DNA on it. He's fucked. I think people just want a Law and Order procedural, complete with confrontations and strenuous objections. 
 

mauidano

Mai Tais for everyone!
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2006
35,626
Maui
Rovin Romine said:
 
I am an attorney. I practiced criminal defense for years.  I still do some, but at the moment most of my practice is commercial - agricultural, actually.  I don't teach law formally.  I have coached mock trial teams and trained/mentored attorneys.  For what it's worth, I think trying to teach someone to try cases (meaning helping them to actually improve in their own way, not trying to get them to conform to a theoretical standard) is probably the best way for the teacher to improve their own skills. So much of trial and relating to a jury is quirky human stuff which defies easy qualitative analysis and can resist formulaic approaches.  (That said, some of the standards are standards for a reason.)  
As well, appreciate you and the other attorney's on SoSH who can relay this to us in layman's terms!  Thanks for the time and effort RR!
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
OilCanShotTupac said:
Seeing lots of FB anger/disgust that "another murderer is going to walk." Any basis for this, other than hyperventilating from the Nancy Grace crowd, and the uncertainty inherent in any trial?
I think RR has shown that 99% of the "Facebook feed" people have never watched an actual opening statement in a murder trial.  And 99% of the remaining 1% have no idea what's going on. 
 
To be fair, I would put myself in that first 99%, which is why I really appreciate RR's perspective on this and other legal cases.  Thanks again!
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Thanks for the kind words everyone.  I don't know how useful I'll be over the next couple of weeks.  All signs point to me being in trial myself, starting on the 2nd.  If I'm in trial, that's all I focus on, first thought awake and last thought before sleep.  So my apologies if I go dark for a bit.  Shouldn't last more than 2 weeks, outside.  (Or the case may resolve; but I don't make that call, the client does.) 
 
There's a long long way to go on the AH/OL trial.  I'm sure the high points of the testimony will be online at those websites linked above, but the more one misses of the trial (or relies on Facebook or whatnot) the more unreliable our view of the overall body evidence becomes.  Sometimes there will be a true nail in the coffin type of witness or occurrence, but sometimes super-salient facts or testimony can slip by regular news coverage.  Also, keep in mind we can't always see the jury's reaction to things.  (When I'm in trial, I have my second chair (the attorney sitting at the table with the lead attorney) focus on the jury during cross.  They write down what they hear, but they're really there to watch how things go over with the jury as a whole and with particular jurors if at all possible.  It's unreliable, but it's a sort of instant feedback.) 
 
If anyone wants to post what the daily testimony is in this thread, I think that could prove to be interesting and useful for everyone, especially when things are wrapping up.  Just ID the witness in a post and just give a quick summary of what they said.  
 
If you can catch the live testimony, some of the stuff might prove to be really interesting if you haven't been exposed to it thus far.  For example, DNA testimony is pretty cool the first 4 times you hear it, and the defense crosses of just how unreliable it can be are equally as thought provoking.  Even a meh witness in a real trial is 20x more interesting than the sometimes wildly-inaccurate CSI type show summaries of how investigations unfold.  Much TV gets the law wrong, the procedure wrong, and often the basic investigative techniques and science wrong.  Personally I think it's just cool to know how it all actually works.  
 
***
On the fuzzy subject of "a murderer may walk," "one idiot juror," etc.  There's a lot to say about that but it's a convo for another day.  
 
Given those sentiments in the thread, I wanted to say that I forgot to point out a possible resolution to the trial - if the jury can't agree, it may "hang" or be unable to return a final decision on one or more of the counts.  In that case, there's simply a new trial on any of the outstanding counts.   So while the defense only has to "reach" one juror who refuses to convict, it only results in a redo.  To get an acquittal (not guilty) the defense has to reach *all* the jurors.  Or to say it another way, the State has to fail to convince every single jurors beyond a reasonable doubt.   (This also illustrates the importance of void dire - can the either side pick a pro-state or pro-defense individual who won't succumb to group pressure?)
 
In less high profile cases, a hung jury is sometimes the equivalent of a win for the defense.  Usually the state concedes there's a problem in the case and offers a much more reasonable plea bargain.  So the defendant gets something they can live with (and knows at least some people thought he was guilty), and the state can note in their files or say in the press that there were some problems (some people thought he was not guilty) and this is the best they can do.  It's kind of like enforced reasonableness on both sides. 
 
Here, I doubt a plea would happen.  Especially with the other pending cases.  AH can't take a 40 year deal since the second case might add X number of years on top of that.  (I'm making assumptions about MA sentencing law here.)  AH could try to get a global plea on all cases after a mistrial, but again, I sort of doubt it.  
 
So, unless there's a huge scandal uncovered, a hung jury (even the the "one idiot" scenario) will just result in a retrial.  Usually retrial favors the state since they've seen the best case the defense can put forward and can address it the next time around.  If witnesses are caught lying, a retrial can sometimes favor the defense, since the defense can now more easily point out those lies.  Here, while I'm shooting in the dark, my first impression is that the state would have a huge advantage.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
As long as they get Aaron Sorkin to rewrite the arguments for the movie later I'm sure the Facebook feeders will,be satisfied.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,518
Maine
RR,
 
Your updates are fantastic.
 
You do seem to be shooting down the Hollywood portrayal of court cases.  Not saying your wrong at all....just that for someone like me the idea that "the opening and closing might not be as important as the evidence and how the Prosecution or defense tie it to the case" is a bit....foreign.  Movies are what I know about criminal cases.  And obviously on some level I realize they are fictional and enteratainment.....but on another I have seen 35 years where the Closing Argument saves the day.
 
So an aside question.....whats the best (most realistic??) court case you have ever seen in a movie?
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Actually My Cousin Vinny is the gold standard, especially to show crosses.   I don't actually watch a lot of crime/court TVs or movies.  
 
I think movies emphasize the close since it sums up the case in the limited narrative time the movie has.  Then they try to make the close dramatic; as in there must be tension that is resolved at the end of the movie (or show). Otherwise we tune out before the last 30 minutes or the commercial break.  So you've got to have the closing argument be the "clincher" in a movie.  The close has to affect people and can't be a forgone conclusion.  So you get movie closes that are kind of weird.  And all the attorneys yell and cry.  (In real life, I love it when an attorney pours on the fake emotion to compensate for a weak case - you can just mock them for it (gently) and point out that *you* don't need to shout or yell because *the facts* are on your client's side.)  
 
Or movies go for the Matlockian dramatic cross/witness breaking down on the stand.  Tension in that the audience knows the witness is lying - dramatic resolution in the attorney bringing that out.  "A Few Good Men."  
 
Usually if there's an actual important/dramatic cross the witness just ends up sitting there, not doing much, but looking like a liar or an idiot.  They can flounder and make it worse, but they seldom break down and "confess."  They more often "turtle up" and stick to some transparent BS excuse for their lies.  
 
***
In the case it looks like we're getting some 911 testimony - the tech on how they're generated logged and tracked.  I think there will likely be some cell phone tower triangulation testimony.  Yes - the fuzz can find out where your phone is (roughly) during calls and texts, even if your gps is disabled.
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
36,684
where the darn libs live
Caspir said:
He left an unlit joint next to the body with his DNA on it. He's fucked. I think people just want a Law and Order procedural, complete with confrontations and strenuous objections. 
This seems like a smoking gun, no pun intended, to me.  Am I crazy?
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Now we're on to S. Jenkins, OL's girlfriend and sister to AH's baby-m.  
 
She's pretty collected.  I recommend tuning in.  She's the first "strong" connection to OL and AH.  Jury's going to pay a lot of attention to her.  
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
CaptainLaddie said:
This seems like a smoking gun, no pun intended, to me.  Am I crazy?
 
It's yet another piece of strong circumstantial evidence.  The defense will say that OL and AH smoked often - and were together earlier in the night.  So it's not surprising that AH may have lipped a joint at some point, but didn't light it up.  OL then held on to it, say when AH was pumping gas or whatever.  Then when the mysterious stranger shoots OL, the joint is just there.  It's reasonable. 
 
There are lot of back and forth arguments you can make about that scenario. Such as why OL would have been holding the joint in his hand (if it was found next to the body) when he was shot.
 
Ultimately, it's going to be the shoes prints, and the tire tracks, and the joint, and the presence together that evening, and the photo of AH with a gun, and the lack of robbery indicators, and the cellphone triangulation, and the disposal of evidence.  Sooner or later the quantity has a quality all it's own.  And from what I see, some of the individual pieces have strong worth on their own. 
 
Edit - if there's DNA on the shell casing in the car, I don't see how they explain that.  Unless they get someone to testify that AH took his guns to the range in his car.  But again, at some point, "the coincidences" are too many to be coincidence.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Ting.  Good example.  I know Baez (socially).  I thought his defense was brilliant.  Probably not something I'd personally do - everyone has their own style, and I can't fake his.
 
The opening gives the jury the story, or the skeleton, or the path, or the roadmap.  It's very very difficult to "win" a case in closing - meaning to recontextualize all of the evidence at the end of the trial.  Far easier to begin with the simple story, let the evidence sort of apply to it, and close showing how the evidence applied to it.  Sometimes you can (in defense on a criminal case) do a sort of "placeholder" opening, where you say "Pay attention to police mistakes, they're all over this case.  I'm not going to list them now because I don't want to tip my hand to the state.  But watch for those inconsistencies - I'll bring them out and we'll talk about them in the close."  (You have to be damn sure to use the word "inconsistent" in your crosses.)  Point is you want the jury thinking *as* the evidence rolls in during testimony.
Johnny Cochrane did this in OJ's criminal trial, making lots of charges barely this side of tinfoil hat stuff that he never came close to proving. People are of two minds about this, because your opponent can make you pay.

Johnny did not mind; he knew his audience. To repeat, the OJ case was largely lost when Garcetti folded on venue and tried in downtown LA rather than Brentwood.
 

Doug Beerabelli

Killer Threads
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Quite a few yes/no questions from the prosecution.   Isn't this objectionable?  I guess it probably doesn't serve the defense to object if it's minor.  And other questions aren't leading.   I don't do trial work, haven't been in a court room in at least a decade, so perhaps my knowledge is ancient on this.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Doug Beerabelli said:
Quite a few yes/no questions from the prosecution.   Isn't this objectionable?  I guess it probably doesn't serve the defense to object if it's minor.  And other questions aren't leading.   I don't do trial work, haven't been in a court room in at least a decade, so perhaps my knowledge is ancient on this.
 It's objectionable.  But you're right - you should save your objections for things that matter.  Otherwise you just draw the trial out pointlessly and dilute your objections that do matter.   
 
One exception to the "no pointless objection" guideline is if you can rattle the OC or disturb flow.  That has to be done sparingly.
 
Also, sometimes Judges really want to "say something" to OC during trial (for whatever reason, but especially if the Judge personally finds OC's conduct offensive in some abstract way) - so, sometimes, "nit-picking" objections give them a chance to do that. It's very nice if the Court starts ragging the OC for too many leading questions, or, even better, instructs the OC in front of the jury as to the difference between a leading and a non-leading question.  I've seen it happen. May not affect the trial, but it can't hurt for the opposition to look incompetent.  Or for the jury to see the Court "agreeing" with you on points. 
 

Alcohol&Overcalls

Member
SoSH Member
Rovin Romine said:
 It's objectionable.  But you're right - you should save your objections for things that matter.  Otherwise you just draw the trial out pointlessly and dilute your objections that do matter.   
 
One exception to the "no pointless objection" guideline is if you can rattle the OC or disturb flow.  That has to be done sparingly.
 
Also, sometimes Judges really want to "say something" to OC during trial (for whatever reason, but especially if the Judge personally finds OC's conduct offensive in some abstract way) - so, sometimes, "nit-picking" objections give them a chance to do that. It's very nice if the Court starts ragging the OC for too many leading questions, or, even better, instructs the OC in front of the jury as to the difference between a leading and a non-leading question.  I've seen it happen. May not affect the trial, but it can't hurt for the opposition to look incompetent.  Or for the jury to see the Court "agreeing" with you on points. 
 
Also, since the trial will likely last a month or so, don't both sides have an interest in playing ball/setting up a quid pro quo that saves time and streamlines the exposition?
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
DegenerateSoxFan said:
Lawyer who say they approach jury selection with a "Just give me the first twelve in the box" are either full of shit or complete fools.
 
 

I agree.  
 
Although sometimes one says this just to mess with the other side.  It implies the case is so good it's not going to get to the jury (i.e., in the criminal context, the state will fail to introduce evidence that can prove an element.)  
 
Surprisingly, that happens.  It's sort of a free trial.  My fav. was the state going forward on a trespass claim without the property owner (or an agent of the owner.)  So they couldn't actually put forth any evidence that my client didn't have permission to be on the property.  Which is pretty much the most basic thing about trespass.  So the judge dismissed it after the state rested.  It happened a long time ago, so the details are blurry, but even now I still can't quite believe we sat a jury over that garbage.  (I think the state wanted at least 60 days in jail for a plea?  Something dumb like that.)  At least it was only a one day "trial."   
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Alcohol&Overcalls said:
 
Also, since the trial will likely last a month or so, don't both sides have an interest in playing ball/setting up a quid pro quo that saves time and streamlines the exposition?
 
Yep.  However, you never want to actually shortchange your client by "playing ball," - meaning you don't forgo anything that actually helps.  
 
Playing too nice to the extent you drop issues usually isn't a problem.  A more common (related) problem is dealing with a client who wants to play shady pool or have you act like a clown.  They're out there.  They watch TV and get advice from jailhouse lawyers and have ideas about what their defense attorney is "supposed" to do.  Keep in mind, some of these guys don't have the best social skills to begin with.  The classic example is the sex offender who repeatedly insists that you to "show the jury that 10 year old kid seduced me - ask her about this and that and how much she liked it."  They really do want you to do that sometimes.
 
Most people don't know this, but defense attorneys aren't slaves to their client's wishes in terms of trial conduct.  We can actually chose to do certain things over our client's express wishes or commands.  So there's room for decorum and professionalism if we make the space for it.  Generally, I'll pretty much go where my client's point, but how I get there is up to me.  (And no, I've never used "the ten year old seduced him" argument.)  
 

DegenerateSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 11, 2006
2,064
Flagstaff, AZ
Great stuff from Rovin here.

Having tried about 50 criminal cases myself (all on the defense side), and watched some very talented colleagues do it, I think the most important thing for a trial lawyer is to find a style that works for them. Not everyone is a pound-the-podium type, and jurors can tell when you're trying to be something you're not. Some of the most effective lawyers out there aren't particularly dramatic. They're just keeping things simple, straightforward and to-the-point (the better prosecutors usually are). Credibility and likeability matter. It won't carry the day if the facts are bad enough, but it can really make a difference.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
Rovin Romine said:
Ultimately, it's going to be the shoes prints, and the tire tracks, and the joint, and the presence together that evening, and the photo of AH with a gun, and the lack of robbery indicators, and the cellphone triangulation, and the disposal of evidence.  Sooner or later the quantity has a quality all it's own.  And from what I see, some of the individual pieces have strong worth on their own. 
 
This is one area in specific, where I think film and television have absolutely ruined the national understanding of the acceptability of circumstantial evidence.
 

Jnai

is not worried about sex with goats
SoSH Member
Sep 15, 2007
16,123
<null>
Not specifically about legal matters, but how on earth did Hernandez manage to pass drug tests?
 

Caspir

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,886
Jnai said:
Not specifically about legal matters, but how on earth did Hernandez manage to pass drug tests?


Edit- He may also have just done a good job of timing the tests. They don't get you that often unless you're in the program iirc, so lucking out for a few years is probably a lot more common among players.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Jnai said:
Not specifically about legal matters, but how on earth did Hernandez manage to pass drug tests?
 
I don't know much about the NFL testing policies - how often they're done, how rigorous they are, what they test for, or how easily they're beaten.
 
That said, I suspect they're lax and/or not hard to beat.  Not to throw stones or stereotype, but if the NFL had a true "100% drug free" policy, we'd likely have seen a whole lot more violations.  
 
Status
Not open for further replies.