Aaron Hernandez Trial (Odin Lloyd)

Status
Not open for further replies.

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Buffalo Head said:
Wow, the difference between Fee and Bomberg is incredible. Hernazdez is going to walk.
I've been nearly certain Hernandez will be found not guilty pretty much from the beginning of this clusterfvck. I haven't heard or seen anything that leads me to believe a jury can convict him in this case. #brokensystem
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
As much as they try to be, courtrooms aren't bubbles. 
 
So, let's assume that someone on the jury watched the Superbowl and saw some AH coverage of some length. 
 
How would that affect our hypothetical juror?
 
Also, let's assume the whole jury is aware of the "comeback" victory.  (Technically it was a comeback, but the last 40 seconds of the game sort of overwhelms the 2 TDs right now, hence the air quotes.)
 
How does the Pats victory affect our hypothetical jury?
 
Also - is any side now more or less likely to call any Patriot witnesses?  (We should have asked that during deflate-gate as well.)
 
(FWIW, if I was on AH's defense team, I'd know the names of the jurors and I would be SCOURING the web for any indication that one or more is biased or broke the Court's orders regarding media, blogging, etc.)
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
HomeRunBaker said:
I've been nearly certain Hernandez will be found not guilty pretty much from the beginning of this clusterfvck. I haven't heard or seen anything that leads me to believe a jury can convict him in this case. #brokensystem
 
We should set up a poll or something - I'm really curious to know where SOSH breaks down on G/NG.  
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
HomeRunBaker said:
I've been nearly certain Hernandez will be found not guilty pretty much from the beginning of this clusterfvck. I haven't heard or seen anything that leads me to believe a jury can convict him in this case. #brokensystem
 
To say that you haven't seen anything that leads you to believe a jury could convict him is to admit that you are paying no attention or that you have no clue how actual trials work.
 
AH's DNA was on the bullet casing found next to Lloyd.  Absent a conscious decision to nullify, Hernandez is going to be convicted.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Average Reds said:
 
To say that you haven't seen anything that leads you to believe a jury could convict him is to admit that you are paying no attention or that you have no clue how actual trials work.
 
AH's DNA was on the bullet casing found next to Lloyd.  Absent a conscious decision to nullify, Hernandez is going to be convicted.
I've paid attention from the get go. The defense will hammer how sloppy this investigation was handled. I never claimed that the prosecution didn't have ANY evidence.....I've stated they don't have any evidence would lead me to believe a jury here is able to convict him. DNA alone isn't convincing a jury.

Damn we've already had a juror removed for essentially saying what I've been repeating.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
HomeRunBaker said:
I've paid attention from the get go. The defense will hammer how sloppy this investigation was handled. I never claimed that the prosecution didn't have ANY evidence.....I've stated they don't have any evidence would lead me to believe a jury here is able to convict him. DNA alone isn't convincing a jury.

Damn we've already had a juror removed for essentially saying what I've been repeating.
What exactly was sloppy about the investigation?
 

Tim Salmon

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2005
3,293
HomeRunBaker said:
I've paid attention from the get go. The defense will hammer how sloppy this investigation was handled. I never claimed that the prosecution didn't have ANY evidence.....I've stated they don't have any evidence would lead me to believe a jury here is able to convict him. DNA alone isn't convincing a jury.
Damn we've already had a juror removed for essentially saying what I've been repeating.
I wonder how many jurors understood going into the trial that "circumstantial" is not a dirty word for describing evidence. I hope any folks who are confused pay close attention to the judge's instructions explaining that point.

I also hope they can wrap their heads around the fact that the standard for conviction is not "personally pulled the trigger" beyond a reasonable doubt.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,271
HomeRunBaker said:
I've paid attention from the get go. The defense will hammer how sloppy this investigation was handled. I never claimed that the prosecution didn't have ANY evidence.....I've stated they don't have any evidence would lead me to believe a jury here is able to convict him. DNA alone isn't convincing a jury.

Damn we've already had a juror removed for essentially saying what I've been repeating.
 
It was reported on 98.5 that the juror went to a substantial more number of Patriots games than was indicated during the jury selection process.
 
As a season ticket holder, going to more Patriots game, would make me more likely to convict his ass.
 

DegenerateSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 11, 2006
2,064
Flagstaff, AZ
PhilPlantier said:
I wonder how many jurors understood going into the trial that "circumstantial" is not a dirty word for describing evidence. I hope any folks who are confused pay close attention to the judge's instructions explaining that point.

I also hope they can wrap their heads around the fact that the standard for conviction is not "personally pulled the trigger" beyond a reasonable doubt.
I've practiced in two different different jurisdictions that give an instruction that the law does not differentiate between circumstantial and direct evidence, and that it is up to the jury to give the evidence the weigh it believes the evidence is entitled to (I'm guessing that MA has a similar instruction).

I think jurors generally get this.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
PhilPlantier said:
I wonder how many jurors understood going into the trial that "circumstantial" is not a dirty word for describing evidence. I hope any folks who are confused pay close attention to the judge's instructions explaining that point.

I also hope they can wrap their heads around the fact that the standard for conviction is not "personally pulled the trigger" beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
 
I agree with DegenerateSoxFan.  Also, regardless of what the instructions say, it's up to the prosecutor to bring the instructions home in context. 
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,994
Burrillville, RI
I have a couple of questions, specifically about the murder weapon. I know it's not a requirement and that convictions have been returned without it but it 2 things make me wonder:
1.) The investigators spent a week dredging that pond in CT looking for the gun
2.) AH's fiancee is still being held in contempt, right? Isn't that basically because she won't tell them what was in the trash bag ( they think it's the gun box) that she discarded?
Do either (or both) of these indicate in any way that the state feels that their case is at all "weak" without the gun?
 

Kevin Youkulele

wishes Claude Makelele was a Red Sox
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2006
8,827
San Diego
steveluck7 said:
I have a couple of questions, specifically about the murder weapon. I know it's not a requirement and that convictions have been returned without it but it 2 things make me wonder:
1.) The investigators spent a week dredging that pond in CT looking for the gun
2.) AH's fiancee is still being held in contempt, right? Isn't that basically because she won't tell them what was in the trash bag ( they think it's the gun box) that she discarded?
Do either (or both) of these indicate in any way that the state feels that their case is at all "weak" without the gun?
For (1) I think you can infer that they thought the gun would strengthen their case considerably, because they went to considerable expense in an effort to obtain it.  For (2), I think there's a lesser inference, in that the cost to them is not so high, but they do think that it would be helpful.  They know they're up against the best defense money can buy and they only have one shot, so they want to get everything they can.  I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that this means they necessarily think their case is weak per se, though - just that it is not as strong as it could be.  
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
HomeRunBaker said:
I've paid attention from the get go. The defense will hammer how sloppy this investigation was handled. I never claimed that the prosecution didn't have ANY evidence.....I've stated they don't have any evidence would lead me to believe a jury here is able to convict him. DNA alone isn't convincing a jury.

Damn we've already had a juror removed for essentially saying what I've been repeating.
 
The reason I keep dogging you on this is that you are presenting your assertions as if they have a factual basis.
  • Do you have any information on the sloppiness of the investigation that you are not sharing?  Because that's not a word I would use to characterize what I have read about.
  • They have evidence that AH was with Lloyd at the time of the murder and they have his fingerprints on the shell casings at the scene of the crime.  Unless the defense can explain those two items away - and the jury is going to have to hear from Hernandez himself to persuade them - that is more than enough to convict.
The last thing I'll say is that it's absolutely possible that a juror goes rogue and the jury hangs.  But it's almost inconceivable that the entire panel disregards clear evidence of his guilt and acquits.
 
As RR has articulated, a hung jury in this case means a retrial and an almost certain conviction.  Honestly, that's the best case scenario for AH.
 

Jnai

is not worried about sex with goats
SoSH Member
Sep 15, 2007
16,123
<null>
Question for RR/other lawyers: if AH is already in jail, why does a mistrial get portrayed as such a "win" for the defense? Isn't it just delaying the inevitable? Doesn't he get retried in that case?
 
Possibilities I can come up with, but I'm not sure if they're reasonable:
1) You get to see the prosecution's hand and so you can prepare better for Trial 2
2) You have the possibility of a new judge requiring some change in venue / charges for Trial 2
3) You spend less time actively convicted of life in prison, and your life in Prison 1 is better than in Prison 2
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Jnai said:
Question for RR/other lawyers: if AH is already in jail, why does a mistrial get portrayed as such a "win" for the defense? Isn't it just delaying the inevitable? Doesn't he get retried in that case?
 
Possibilities I can come up with, but I'm not sure if they're reasonable:
1) You get to see the prosecution's hand and so you can prepare better for Trial 2
2) You have the possibility of a new judge requiring some change in venue / charges for Trial 2
3) You spend less time actively convicted of life in prison, and your life in Prison 1 is better than in Prison 2
 
I touched on this somewhere upthread, but basically, in most cases a mistrial is a "win" because it forces both sides to acknowledge there's some risk in a second trial.  Sometimes the state just drops a case entirely once they realize there's a significant problem (and how much it will cost them to retry.)  More commonly you get a truly reasonable plea offer - the state knows there's a problem and does not want to retry "at any cost."   Meanwhile, the defendant really knows at least some jurors would convict him, and, often the trial "clears the head" of a optimistic defendant; they get to see just how that cop is going to throw them under the bus.  
 
This is not "most cases."  The state will just retry this one as many times as it needs to.  (There are murder cases that get tried 5 or 6 times.)  The state's not going to make any kind of offer AH will accept. 
 
As to an advantage on retrial it's sort of up in the air:
 
Usually in state-level criminal cases (not Fed.), the defense has a pretty good idea about thesState's case, but the state always has to guess (to some extent) at what the defense will be.  Assuming you use your best defense in the first trial, generally it's the state who has an advantage in planning for the second trial.  Here, with AH, it's most likely the state who'll gain at a second trial.  For example, the defense has brought up the idea that other joggers could have been through the site.  Maybe the second time around the state finds a new witness who can talk about the lack of joggers at the site.  (Because - oh yes - the state isn't limited to the information it presents at the first trial.)  Or maybe if there's a test that looks fishy, the state can just do a second and third test in the interim. 
 
In terms of a new judge - that's kind of rolling the dice.  First of all, it's not required (in most jurisdictions that I know of) that there be a new judge.  But if there was, perhaps the new trial judge will favor the state.
 
In terms of pre-conviction incarceration, it really depends on where you are v. where you'll go (and you often don't know that for sure).  I've seen guys who prefer jail to prison and guys who prefer prison to jail.  There's a great deal of variance in facilities. 
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
steveluck7 said:
I have a couple of questions, specifically about the murder weapon. I know it's not a requirement and that convictions have been returned without it but it 2 things make me wonder:
1.) The investigators spent a week dredging that pond in CT looking for the gun
2.) AH's fiancee is still being held in contempt, right? Isn't that basically because she won't tell them what was in the trash bag ( they think it's the gun box) that she discarded?
Do either (or both) of these indicate in any way that the state feels that their case is at all "weak" without the gun?
 
KYouk is right on this. 
 
Also, if the state had "the gun," it's a bit more comprehensive than just sort of showing a murder weapon.  For it to be "the gun" they'd have to be able to tie it to the slugs recovered through ballistics.  Then there's the issue of where and how it was found (potentially a stronger tie to AH).  And the issue of IDing the gun and tracing its sales history (again, potentially a stronger tie to AH's other guns).  Or maybe you bust the guy who sold it to AH and have him testify.  Plus it probably matches the image of the gun in AH's hand in the surveillance photograph.  It may have AH's DNA on it (or in it) or fingerprints on or in it.  Which is pretty much a slam dunk. How do you explain away DNA/Fingerprints on the murder weapon inside of such a short timeline?  (I mean you can try, but come on.)
 
No matter how strong the case is (and it appears very strong at this point), it can always benefit from having the above.  Although there's no guarantee of DNA, etc.  So you have to put forward serious efforts to find it.
 
**
The contempt issue is interesting.  I touched on that in the first post.  We still (didn't watch today) don't know how it's going to play out.  
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
Shaneah's testimony last week and yesterday is on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Da7cRDmpHEz4&ved=0CCIQtwIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNGXHmvn_7Biy0e8GPG6xuNKu1oNEg

She's a compelling witness. She testified that Hernandez and Lloyd were not close and had seen each other for the first time without the sisters present the weekend of the murder. Could come back to bite the defense who made a big deal about Lloyd being a friend of Hernandez in the opening.

(Subjective) She seems a little too knowledgeable about the law to me. As a juror I'd believe her but I'd wonder if she was well-prepared.
 

P'tucket rhymes with...

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2006
11,624
The Coney Island of my mind
crystalline said:
Shaneah's testimony last week and yesterday is on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Da7cRDmpHEz4&ved=0CCIQtwIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNGXHmvn_7Biy0e8GPG6xuNKu1oNEg

She's a compelling witness. She testified that Hernandez and Lloyd were not close and had seen each other for the first time without the sisters present the weekend of the murder. Could come back to bite the defense who made a big deal about Lloyd being a friend of Hernandez in the opening.

(Subjective) She seems a little too knowledgeable about the law to me. As a juror I'd believe her but I'd wonder if she was well-prepared.
 
Apparently, she's paying attention in class:
 
Rovin Romine said:
Huh.  Jenkins is a 2L focusing on Crim Law at NEC.  
 
That's going to be super tricky for the defense.  You guys should watch this. 
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
crystalline said:
(Subjective) She seems a little too knowledgeable about the law to me. As a juror I'd believe her but I'd wonder if she was well-prepared.
 
As a juror, I'd be wondering why she's toned down her story about AH's actions afterward. The discrepancy between Grand Jury and Trial testimony suggests she might be learning law lessons all over the place.
 

Alcohol&Overcalls

Member
SoSH Member
Rovin Romine said:
 
As to an advantage on retrial it's sort of up in the air:
 
 
...
 
Here, with AH, it's most likely the state who'll gain at a second trial.
 
All of my experience is on the jury side, so take that FWIW - but studies have shown that pretrial publicity is a massive negative for defendants, because inculpatory evidence generally makes headlines (and sticks in the mind), to the extent that the effects persist even for jurors with little recall of specifics or who are otherwise "unbiased." One major exception, though, is when there's a mistrial or hung jury - that type of PTP indicates to potential jurors that the state's evidence might not be all that solid, and gives a "wisdom of crowds" bump to future not-guilty efforts in the jury room by pro-D jurors.
 
Obviously, proper jury selection would attempt to find 12 that have no clue about the case, but that's probably not possible - so while the state probably makes strategic gains, it will start off a certain measure further behind based on PTP (or, more properly, will lose one of their biggest starting advantages). Obviously you can't quantify which is greater - it's an interesting thought experiment though.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Alcohol&Overcalls said:
 
All of my experience is on the jury side, so take that FWIW - but studies have shown that pretrial publicity is a massive negative for defendants, because inculpatory evidence generally makes headlines (and sticks in the mind), to the extent that the effects persist even for jurors with little recall of specifics or who are otherwise "unbiased." One major exception, though, is when there's a mistrial or hung jury - that type of PTP indicates to potential jurors that the state's evidence might not be all that solid, and gives a "wisdom of crowds" bump to future not-guilty efforts in the jury room by pro-D jurors.
 
Obviously, proper jury selection would attempt to find 12 that have no clue about the case, but that's probably not possible - so while the state probably makes strategic gains, it will start off a certain measure further behind based on PTP (or, more properly, will lose one of their biggest starting advantages). Obviously you can't quantify which is greater - it's an interesting thought experiment though.
 
It is interesting.  I don't know much about how potential jurors en masse might view a retrial. I suspect that jurisdictions with comprehensive voir dires would allow the attorneys to get into all the pretrial/retrial publicity and how that may or may not affect potential jurors.  I've never retried a case, so I've never looked closely at the kinds of things one might do to address this with jurors.  
 
I suppose a retrial that arose from an appellate issue might be different than a retrial that resulted from a hung jury, if only in the greater time that's passed since the charges were filed.   Then there's the issue of whether a jury convicts or acquits some counts - and other counts need to be retried.  
 
All the pre-trial publicity I've ever seen seems to favor the state, or suggest that some "technical" issue resulted in the appeal.  Perhaps that's simply because the truly weak cases or fatally flawed cases may not actually be retired and thus, aren't reported. 
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
soxfan121 said:
 
As a juror, I'd be wondering why she's toned down her story about AH's actions afterward. The discrepancy between Grand Jury and Trial testimony suggests she might be learning law lessons all over the place.
 
Haven't heard that bit yet on the archived testimony.  http://www.wildabouttrial.com/trial_videos/aaron-hernandez-trial-archive/
 
Edit - Just heard it.  Seems like no big deal.  Semantics.  Prosecutor did an OK job on redirect.
 
From what I've seen of her testimony so far she comes across as honest and straightforward.  Probably to straightforward to fabricate anything out of whole cloth.  As a juror, I might not trust her 100%, but I wouldn't have any reasonable doubt that she's telling the truth, pretty plainly, on the big issues. 
 
***
Usually "toning down" is not nearly as bad as "adding detail/weight" at trial.  It suggests honesty rather than piling on.  
 
The prosecutor should have immunized this issue (in voir dire, or on direct) by bringing out the idea that little details can get blurred in anyone's memory, but the important things stick.  If done right, it can make the defense look like nit-pickers.  Lots of prosecutors wait to the close to do that.  Sometimes that's too late since the implied argument is "wrong on X, Y and Z, probably wrong on A, B, and C."
 
There's an interesting question as to whether either side in any given case wants "nuanced thinkers" v. "black and white thinkers," that is jurors who are more likely to just dismiss or believe testimony in huge chunks based on whether they believe or disbelieve a witness.  
 

Kevin Youkulele

wishes Claude Makelele was a Red Sox
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2006
8,827
San Diego
Rovin Romine said:
 
 
There's an interesting question as to whether either side in any given case wants "nuanced thinkers" v. "black and white thinkers," that is jurors who are more likely to just dismiss or believe testimony in huge chunks based on whether they believe or disbelieve a witness.  
I don't do criminal law but it seems to me that nuanced thinkers would usually favor the defense because of the standard of no reasonable doubt on all elements of the crime.  In essence, they are more likely to recognize that a problem with what would ordinarily appear to be a small part of the prosecution's case can sink the entire case rather than glossing over it and taking the gestalt.
 

hittery

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 13, 2005
8,444
Windsor, CT
Kevin Youkulele said:
I don't do criminal law but it seems to me that nuanced thinkers would usually favor the defense because of the standard of no reasonable doubt on all elements of the crime.  In essence, they are more likely to recognize that a problem with what would ordinarily appear to be a small part of the prosecution's case can sink the entire case rather than glossing over it and taking the gestalt.
I don't know if they actually favor the defense, but as a defense lawyer I agree that in general I would prefer a nuanced thinker, and tend to avoid black or white thinkers.

On another note, I'm always surprised at how nervous cops come off on the stand, even seasoned ones. The guy on the stand right now has 20 years experience with the state police, so I imagine he's been called to testify numerous times. He's just sweating bullets up there (no pun intended).

Of course, it could be the cameras.
 

Kevin Youkulele

wishes Claude Makelele was a Red Sox
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2006
8,827
San Diego
hittery said:
I don't know if they actually favor the defense, but as a defense lawyer I agree that in general I would prefer a nuanced thinker, and tend to avoid black or white thinkers.

On another note, I'm always surprised at how nervous cops come off on the stand, even seasoned ones. The guy on the stand right now has 20 years experience with the state police, so I imagine he's been called to testify numerous times. He's just sweating bullets up there (no pun intended).

Of course, it could be the cameras.
On further consideration, at least for factually innocent defendants, I would think nuanced thinkers would be strongly favorable to the defense.  Look no further than deflategate for an object lesson in the importance of considering detail. 
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Nuanced thinkers are good, but it's nice for the defense to seat a black and white thinker when they are going to pitch the "can't trust them on the small things, so how can you trust them on the big things" argument.   Usually, that'd be a one-primary-witness case where you're fairly certain you can dirty up that witness.  For example, if the alleged victim/only witness in a battery has a restraining order at the time, or has a felony record, or makes a couple of very bad statements in a depo.   'Course, those types of jurors are the ones you want to avoid if your defendant has a history, etc. 
 

amlothi

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2007
802
 
James Sultan was questioning a state police trooper about tire pressure Thursday when he jokingly asked whether the trooper had ever received "training in football deflation devices."
On Friday morning, Superior Court Judge Susan Garsh told Sultan that they are conducting serious business, and she does not expect there to be any more jokes. Sultan agreed and expressed regret.
 
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12287901/judge-chastises-aaron-hernandez-lawyer-deflategate-joke
 

Steve Dillard

wishes drew noticed him instead of sweet & sour
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2003
5,932
But I learned from My Cousin Vinny that such asides are encouraged. 
"She's cute, too, right?"
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Steve Dillard said:
But I learned from My Cousin Vinny that such asides are encouraged. 
"She's cute, too, right?"
 
There's an old saw that men "rise by their gravity and sink by their levity."
 
In practice, humor in the courtroom depends on the judge's demeanor - some are super-serious and want no joking at all, some actually encourage appropriate levity.   (However, when they're not in front of the jury or on camera, nearly all judges like being handed a feed or a straight line, regardless of what they do with it.)  
 
Allowing humor in front of a jury also depends on the relationship between the judge and the attorney - I know a few who are always cracking jokes, so it's just kind of part of the package and forgiven a trial.  Some of these guys can do stuff anyone else would get reamed for.  Or at least any attorney whom the judge did not know as well.  An example: I know a defense attorney who objected to a part of a (much younger) prosecutor's opening with, "Objection Judge - that's just completely obnoxious."  Which it was.  It got a smirk out of the judge, which the jury saw, and so even though it was technically overruled as a groundless objection, he endeared himself and his client to the jury.  It also gave his "the prosecution is over-reaching" defense a real emotional shot in the arm.  But you've got to pick your spots.  A different attorney or a different judge and one runs the risk of getting a growling "That's enough Mr. Attorney - overruled" - no gain, perhaps a loss in the eyes of the jury.  
 
There's some debate as to whether levity at trial helps the defense or not.  For non-serious crimes, I think it often does.  For serious crimes, the stakes are much higher if you make a joke.  I suspect it's the reverse for the prosecution - if the prosecutor can be kind to a defense witness and make a light joke in a serious trial that's good because it humanizes the prosecution.  However, if the prosecutor is yukking it up on a minor case, how seriously is the jury going to be about jailing someone?  Or maybe the jury will be relaxed enough to convict.  It's hard to say.  I haven't run into a prosector with a sense of humor (ba-dum-ch).
 
Here, it sounds like a decent move on the defense's part - or at leas not a true blunder.  But we have to see the jury reaction to make a guess.    
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,885
Alexandria, VA
Rovin Romine said:
 
There's an old saw that men "rise by their gravity and sink by their levity."
 
In practice, humor in the courtroom depends on the judge's demeanor - some are super-serious and want no joking at all, some actually encourage appropriate levity.   (However, when they're not in front of the jury or on camera, nearly all judges like being handed a feed or a straight line, regardless of what they do with it.)  
 
Allowing humor in front of a jury also depends on the relationship between the judge and the attorney 
 
One of my lawyer friends (civil, accounting malpractice, so a very different beast) constantly has tales of courtroom snark.  e.g. at one point during a case a lawyer thought that it was a clusterfuck of objections and procedural nonsense, got frustrated and said to the judge "This case is just going really poorly".  The which the opponent shot back "Your honor, we think it's going really well."
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
SumnerH said:
 
One of my lawyer friends (civil, accounting malpractice, so a very different beast) constantly has tales of courtroom snark.  e.g. at one point during a case a lawyer thought that it was a clusterfuck of objections and procedural nonsense, got frustrated and said to the judge "This case is just going really poorly".  The which the opponent shot back "Your honor, we think it's going really well."
 
My general rule of thumb is that random snark (in front of the Judge) really never works out well.  9.9 times of 10 you're not going to say anything about the opposing counsel's behavior that the Court hasn't already figured out.  
 
Sometimes the Court sort of invites it (e.g., the classic, "I imagine Mr. Romine might disagree with that characterization.  Mr. Romine?")  Even then, it's a better bet to take the high road.   An eyebrow twitch and a small nod before you begin a measured response can convey that you and the Court are the reasonable, knowledgeable, adult parties here.  
 
While it's kind of snarky, one thing that's often OK is a recontextualizing argument in response to someone's tangental point or attempt to poison the Court.  Something like, "Well your Honor, I listened carefully to what Counsel said, but my client was injured, filed suit, and is entitled to his discovery just like everyone else is.  That's why were here today.  So I'm not really sure why Counsel raised the points he did.  They're not germane to the narrow issue that's properly before the Court.  Would the Court prefer me to address them at this time?"  While it's dismissive to the point of being snarky, it has real content.  
 
FWIW, there's often a huge difference between Federal and state practice - in general Fed is more professional.  You do a *lot* of tongue biting in some state courts though.  
 

PeaceSignMoose

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2006
1,745
Boston
Jnai said:
That's gotta be the weapon, right?
 
Theres no way she still has it.  This is regarding Jenkins' perjury charges.  Prosecutors allege that Jenkins perjured herself a whole host of times in the grand jury proceedings.  Although, part of me wonders if this has something to do with not bringing obstruction of justice charges against her, as well.
 

CR67dream

blue devils forevah!
Dope
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
7,187
I'm going home
PeaceSignMoose said:
 
Theres no way she still has it.  This is regarding Jenkins' perjury charges.  Prosecutors allege that Jenkins perjured herself a whole host of times in the grand jury proceedings.  Although, part of me wonders if this has something to do with not bringing obstruction of justice charges against her, as well.
Or accessory after the fact. If she can spill everything she knows/did without fear of going down, that can't be good for Hernandez. 
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
RedOctober3829 said:
Uh-oh Aaron.  His girlfriend has been granted immunity and will be able to testify against him for the prosecution.
 
https://twitter.com/DanWetzel/status/565231878912106496
 
It's a little different than what your bare statement suggests.  The reporting is spotty and we'd have to see the motion and the ruling to fully know what's going on here.  
 
However - without immunity Jenkins, if called by the prosecution, could "invoke the fifth amendment" and refuse to testify to anything that might result in self-incrimination.   That is, she wouldn't have to testify to any bad behavior on her part, as long as it was possible for the state to charge her with something based on that, or, as long as it was possible for the state to use her testimony against her in a future matter.  Say, for destruction of evidence.  If her refusal to testify also somehow shields AH, that's just a collateral issue from a Constitutional perspective.  
 
But now, if Jenkins has been granted full or limited immunity, she can no longer invoke the fifth regarding any question the immunity addresses.  That does not mean she will tell the truth in response to any question, but simply that her response can't be used in a future proceeding to incriminate her (say, distraction of evidence).  If she testifies and lies, she can still be charged with perjury (should the state wish to charge her so.)  If she refuses to testify, the Court can hold her in contempt, and, depending on the motion/order/MA law, she might still be charged with a crime (say, destruction of evidence) if she refuses to testify on that subject and/or perjures herself.  
 
In my experience these kind of agreements can be tricky and depend on some measure of goodwill.  Should one side start to game the other, there's usually some penalty for it.   Usually though, the safe path is for the immunized person to have every incentive to spill their guts (overprotection) and some strong penalties for game-playing.  Jenkins might have anything ranging from partial immunity (nothing she says is useable against her, but an independent case might be made) to total immunity (if she testifies, no charges can be pursued against her.)  We'll have to see.  
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
BTW, there's also the issue of civil liability here.  Jenkins might be able to cut a deal that would carve out some portion of AH's assets to support her and her kid if he's convicted.  Caveats - I don't know if a civil suit's been filed yet.  I also don't know MA family law and how it applies to her - she's unmarried, I think.  But would AH's child support funds be something that could be captured by criminal restitution?  What if she's a co-defendant?
 
There are a lot of moving parts here that could push Jenkins one way or another.  But the prosecution/family definitely has a carrot/stick ability, should they decide to pull together on this.  
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Presumably her lawyer fought for immunity (limited or total), yes? In which case what would be her impetus for refusing to testify after that? Wouldn't her deal be contingent on being able and willing to provide valuable testimony?

Just trying to discern difference between TV shows and real life.
 
Usually the process begins with temporary limited immunity ("queen for a day").  The witness shares what they *could* testify to and a deal is hammered out if there's anything good there.  (However, having a deal in place is something the defense can attack - obviously the witness is biased and may lie just to please the prosecution or escape justice themselves.)
 
What the deal actually becomes depends on the potential testimony, it's trial value vis a vis the deal, and the actual extent of the immunity the state is willing to grant (and the witness is willing to accept).  
 
There's no deal you can offer (that I know of) that says "the testimony must be valuable," or "you've really got to stick it to AH."  In part because the deal has to be fully disclosed to the defense.   Also in part because it's impossible to enforce something like that.  Hence me writing that they're tricky and depend on some goodwill.  It's possible that Jenkins never wanted to testify, is testifying "grudgingly," and will always shade her answers to try to help acquit AH.  Generally, if you agree to say one thing and say another thing (including grossly coloring your testimony or adding "new" facts to undercut it) while you're on the stand, the gloves come off.  
 
The "ideal" set up for the prosecution is Jenkins gets little or no immunity (deal looks good the jury) and testifies strongly against AH to induce the prosecution to be nice afterward.  Basically a willing witness.  (Although the defense can spin this.)  The ideal set up for Jenkins is that she gets absolute immunity and has significant room to maneuver on the stand.  She can shield AH or burn him.  This deal's somewhere in the middle.  It probably involves her testifying to certain facts as stipulated in the agreement.  
 
I'm curious to see what they've actually come up with.   This is in part because Jenkins is very publicly backing AH; how willing is she going to be on the stand?  Who drove the request for immunity?  It's possible that the State is the one who sought court approval for some kind of limited immunity (with no deal to testify in place) just to force Jenkins to take the stand and answer certain questions (possibly being impeached in front of the jury with her previous inconsistent testimony).   
 
Or maybe she's wanted to burn AH all along.  But that seems unlikely. 
 

mauidano

Mai Tais for everyone!
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2006
35,626
Maui
Rovin Romine said:
BTW, there's also the issue of civil liability here.  Jenkins might be able to cut a deal that would carve out some portion of AH's assets to support her and her kid if he's convicted.  Caveats - I don't know if a civil suit's been filed yet.  I also don't know MA family law and how it applies to her - she's unmarried, I think.  But would AH's child support funds be something that could be captured by criminal restitution?  What if she's a co-defendant?
 
There are a lot of moving parts here that could push Jenkins one way or another.  But the prosecution/family definitely has a carrot/stick ability, should they decide to pull together on this.  
This would be a HUGE shift.  She has been publicly supportive and loving of AH as well as helping the defense team even during her sisters testimony. I find it hard to believe that she is gonna roll over on AH at this point. Granted it's her only way out. If she truly believes he's gonna see the light of day, she's not gonna turn. Someone may be putting the handwriting on the wall for her to see. Wouldn't want to be in her shoes for anything.
 

Jnai

is not worried about sex with goats
SoSH Member
Sep 15, 2007
16,123
<null>
PeaceSignMoose said:
 
Theres no way she still has it.  This is regarding Jenkins' perjury charges.  Prosecutors allege that Jenkins perjured herself a whole host of times in the grand jury proceedings.  Although, part of me wonders if this has something to do with not bringing obstruction of justice charges against her, as well.
I didn't think she had it, but she might know where it was dumped or have some evidence that she did it for him.

I assume without a big piece of the puzzle there's no reason to grant her immunity, though, which is why I figured the weapon. [Edit: Probably not true, RR addresses the possible motives / reasons / etc for offering immunity above.]

Edit: Sorry, you answered some of this above, didn't see your reply until after I posted. [As always, huge thanks for breaking this stuff down.]
 

Steve Dillard

wishes drew noticed him instead of sweet & sour
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2003
5,932
Rovin Romine said:
 
It's a little different than what your bare statement suggests.  The reporting is spotty and we'd have to see the motion and the ruling to fully know what's going on here.  
 
However - without immunity Jenkins, if called by the prosecution, could "invoke the fifth amendment" and refuse to testify to anything that might result in self-incrimination.  
But now, if Jenkins has been granted full or limited immunity, she can no longer invoke the fifth regarding any question the immunity addresses. ...  If she refuses to testify, the Court can hold her in contempt, and, depending on the motion/order/MA law, she might still be charged with a crime (say, destruction of evidence) if she refuses to testify on that subject and/or perjures herself.  
 
Rovin,
Not a criminal lawyer, but my read on this is that it is far more likely that this is simply the Government getting its ducks in a row rather than her signalling a willingness to testify.  As you point out, they couldn't hold her in contempt until they offer immunity.  Would the process require a formal offer that is accepted by the judge?
I bet she does not testify.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.