Aaron Hernandez Trial (Odin Lloyd)
- Thread starter Rovin Romine
- Start date
- Status
GeorgeCostanza said:
My wife doesn't follow sports or news, especially crime related events. So I usually have to bring her up to speed when there's a particularly interesting case like this one.
The sports players she knows are the ones that maufman mentions: Brady, Gronkowski, and others like Ellsbury, Damon, Varitek because they're cute and they get a good amount of publicity.
OK. Jenkins back on the stand. I missed the initial testimony about the box, but according to tweets, AH asked her to dispose of the box, said it was important, but didn't elaborate why. The box was 12" by 24," but she can't testify to the weight because it was a long time ago.
Tune in to find out what happens to the box.
Tune in to find out what happens to the box.
I'm pretty sure she admitted to asking AH, "Did you do it?" the night he got home from the police station.
I've been half-paying attention this morning, so I could be wrong.
I've been half-paying attention this morning, so I could be wrong.
Jnai said:
The point is you can't let a good detail get lost in a slew of "what happened next" questions. If anyone is curios, you should google up the William Kennedy Smith rape trial and watch some of Roy Black's crosses. (Black is a Miami attorney, former PD, and arguably the most famous local legal figure (excluding those involved in ponzi schemes.)
If you have a good detail, you need to "loop" into those "what happened next questions" - a 5 to 1 repetition ratio might be obnoxious, but a 50 to 1 runs the risk of burying your nugget, or at least suggesting to the jury that it's not emotionally important. This also applies to a portion or subsection of a cross or direct.
Jenkins testified she put the box in a dumpster. She does not remember where the dumpster was (or what town it was in). She thinks it was a residential area. She claims she was "nervous." When pressed as to why she was nervous she said she had a lot of things do to, like getting stuff for her daughter, and "playing a neutral role."
She was asked about the box within two months of getting rid of it, and was unable to answer differently at that point.
She never discussed what was in the box with AH.
(Prosecutor generally doing a good job following up and not letting her weasel out on things.)
Prosecutor showing her photos of her withdrawing money from an ATM "during that trip you took after you spoke to the defendant." The quote is the type of "looping" I was getting at. Whatever the jury instruction says "Disposal" of evidence or "Destruction" of evidence, I'd be deliberately using that word. e.g., "withdrawing money during the trip when you disposed of the box." The point is to say "disposed of the box" several times during the line of questioning to cement it for the jury. Again, you can't be ham handed with this sort of thing, but you've got to loop.
She was asked about the box within two months of getting rid of it, and was unable to answer differently at that point.
She never discussed what was in the box with AH.
(Prosecutor generally doing a good job following up and not letting her weasel out on things.)
Prosecutor showing her photos of her withdrawing money from an ATM "during that trip you took after you spoke to the defendant." The quote is the type of "looping" I was getting at. Whatever the jury instruction says "Disposal" of evidence or "Destruction" of evidence, I'd be deliberately using that word. e.g., "withdrawing money during the trip when you disposed of the box." The point is to say "disposed of the box" several times during the line of questioning to cement it for the jury. Again, you can't be ham handed with this sort of thing, but you've got to loop.
knuck said:
I know that came out in her Voir Dire, but it's not a great sign that it wasn't front and center and solid in the direct (if it happened in the direct), given the importance so many of our SOSHers attach to it. Perhaps it was buried, or perhaps we haven't gotten there yet. (Or perhaps it was brought out and really impacted the jury, but we all sort of missed it.)
Just using this as an opportunity to comment on style/structure. IMO most young attorneys are worried about their "style" in front of a jury. They want smart sound-bite, quotable phrases. They want to know how to wave their hands and raise their voice. They want to focus on closing arguments and "convincing" people. I think that's often misplaced. When I train/coach, I end up emphasizing two things. 1) the jury does not know what you know (and you've gone over the facts a dozen times) - thus, you've got to present everything you know "for the first time" to a stranger, who isn't aware of how those facts interact. 2) the way to do that is by paying attention to the structure of the case/information/argument. Get that right and the "style" takes care of itself.
The prosecutor is using the word "dispose" repeatedly now. An improvement.
***
Factually:
SJ brought the clothing back with her (she took a bag with the box and clothing to dispose of).
SJ was in constant contact with AH during this on the burner phone.
SJ says they didn't have a conversation she recalls about getting rid of the box. ("To her knowledge" they never had a conversation where she confirmed that she got rid of the box to AH.)
***
Factually:
SJ brought the clothing back with her (she took a bag with the box and clothing to dispose of).
SJ was in constant contact with AH during this on the burner phone.
SJ says they didn't have a conversation she recalls about getting rid of the box. ("To her knowledge" they never had a conversation where she confirmed that she got rid of the box to AH.)
Also, SJ took out $800 from an ATM during the box trip. She can't recall why. She testified she paid the housekeepers with a check though (and the check was shown to the jury.)
(I think the implication is that she gave the gunbox and $800 cash to someone when she was out on her trip. I'm not sure the prosecutor opened that up for the jury.)
We're now onto the search warrant for the shoes issue.
SJ says she "does not recognize" the size 13 Retro Air Jordans allegedly worn by AH during the shooting (shoes are in a photo of AH's closet).
(I think the implication is that she gave the gunbox and $800 cash to someone when she was out on her trip. I'm not sure the prosecutor opened that up for the jury.)
We're now onto the search warrant for the shoes issue.
SJ says she "does not recognize" the size 13 Retro Air Jordans allegedly worn by AH during the shooting (shoes are in a photo of AH's closet).
SJ is doing a major waffle on the shoes. She does not know anything about any shoes, she can't say if AH wore any particular kind of shoes, she can't say what happened to the shoes (thus far).
(This is the kind of thing that can sink a witness - they think they're "helping" by committing to a "I don't know" scenario, but it's transparently obstructionist and false. We'll see how/if the prosecution capitalizes on this - it may have to wait for rebuttal.)
(This is the kind of thing that can sink a witness - they think they're "helping" by committing to a "I don't know" scenario, but it's transparently obstructionist and false. We'll see how/if the prosecution capitalizes on this - it may have to wait for rebuttal.)
Holy shit - is the prosecution implying that the defense counsel destroyed evidence? I mean, right after a series of questions about the "box", the questions talk about "three pairs of shoes" leaving the house, and what did the defense attorneys do when they where there.
Joshv02 said:
It's subtle, but it's there. Basically, the issue is that anyone could have removed the shoes. But I'm not sure why anyone *would* move/take/steal only the items that might incriminate AH. (If I was questioning her, I might ask if anything else went missing - if she filed police reports, fired her housekeepers, etc.)
Now they're talking about a convo where AH asked if SJ "moved his items" - prosecutor could have pressed stronger on this. She's being vague, but this is a good point to ask an open ended "like what?" question and then drill down on whatever she says. If she gets specific on something else, you drill her for not remembering the shoes.
Shit, there it is again.
Sultan Rankin Fee or an associate come to your home after the shoe conversation?
4 times.
Was anything recovered by them or their agents?
Objection. Sustained.
Edit: I'm not sure what to think of this. If I was on defense, I'd probably look into this being the basis for a mistrial, if I wanted to move for one. It's improper to suggest the defense did something like this. (Unless they did.) At the very least I'd ask for a "dressing down" instruction from the judge to the jury explaining there was nothing improper, consultation is normal, etc.
If the defense actually did something like this then they're likely in deep deep trouble.
Sultan Rankin Fee or an associate come to your home after the shoe conversation?
4 times.
Was anything recovered by them or their agents?
Objection. Sustained.
Edit: I'm not sure what to think of this. If I was on defense, I'd probably look into this being the basis for a mistrial, if I wanted to move for one. It's improper to suggest the defense did something like this. (Unless they did.) At the very least I'd ask for a "dressing down" instruction from the judge to the jury explaining there was nothing improper, consultation is normal, etc.
If the defense actually did something like this then they're likely in deep deep trouble.
Would it surprise anyone if AH owned somewhere around 100 pairs of shoes? Couldn't the cross examination have a line of questioning like "In your estimation, how many pairs of shoes did AH own?"Rovin Romine said:
then "do you know the style of each of those pairs?"
Would that mitigate any damage she might be doing by answering the way she is right now?
I am disappointed the Prosecutor didnt get more specific as to why she felt she had to cover the box with clothes in the bag. That was the golden bullet right there. Can he sum up at the end of her direct with that and not remembering where she disposed of the box to drive home how evasive SK is?
steveluck7 said:
norm from cheers said:
I'm going to have to wait and see what happens on cross and direct. Part of the problem in criticizing the strategy of the questioning is the length of the testimony. It may be that the prosecution comes "roaring back" on redirect and hits a lot of points they're glossing over now. I think that makes sense to do for witnesses without a lot of testimony since it gives you "the last word" on things.
On the other hand, they're eliciting hours and hours of direct and glossing over some points. My gut feeling is they should be looping/pushing on some of this stuff right now, before cross, to make it harder for the other side to rehab her as a witness. My opinion is that it's going to come out on cross anyway, so push now when you have some control, and at least it won't be as elegant as it might be if you wait for the other side to dress it up in front of the jury.
I think that a "summary" might be in order, but you run the risk of getting that objected to under "already asked and answered." (Another reason to loop.) The other thing you can do (which he prosecutor is not doing) is to comment and create boundaries in the testimony, "We've talked about your driving to give money to Wallace, now I want to focus on what you did with physical items." Makes it easier than just lurching into a new line of questioning.
Missed a bit.
Picked up when they're talking about Tanya going to jail (aunt who refused to testify in front of the grand jury.)
AH believed Tanya would be there for a month.
Prosecutor asking some open ended questions now (good).
Picked up when they're talking about Tanya going to jail (aunt who refused to testify in front of the grand jury.)
AH believed Tanya would be there for a month.
Prosecutor asking some open ended questions now (good).
SJ says AH never spoke with her about why Tanya was being held in jail.
SJ might have told AH why Tanya was in jail. But can't remember.
And now something crucial:
SJ testified in front of the Grand Jury.
She answered truthfully then.
She has immunity here.
Her answers are different now.
She was confused by some questions at the Grand Jury.
She was asked about contact with Bo after the homicide.
Her answers were different than the ones she gave in this trial.
(sidebar)
SJ might have told AH why Tanya was in jail. But can't remember.
And now something crucial:
SJ testified in front of the Grand Jury.
She answered truthfully then.
She has immunity here.
Her answers are different now.
She was confused by some questions at the Grand Jury.
She was asked about contact with Bo after the homicide.
Her answers were different than the ones she gave in this trial.
(sidebar)
Uh. Direct over. That ended with a whimper. Unless the redirect is good, this seems like an enormous missed opportunity. Maybe they got a lot out, maybe their hands were tied by the judge, but wow.
Now on cross.
Now on cross.
Cross on in background - lots of SJ/AH early relationship stuff. She's clearly happy to respond to the defense questions. This is going slow.
Rovin Romine said:
In your experience do jurors responds negatively to individuals who are eager to help the defense but not the prosecution--and is it different for witnesses who help out the prosecution but fight the defense?
Rovin Romine said:
Does this point toward the earlier maxim that was brought up about never asking a question if you don't know the answer? Perhaps the prosecution has heard of some hijinks, although it seems pretty bold to go down that road.
Shelterdog said:
That's too broad a question to answer (not that's it's a *bad* question). I think the jury's response is more about the crime, the jury, the witness's demeanor, the particular testimony, etc., rather than a pro-defense/prosecution question.
FWIW, I think juries are pretty good at getting a witness's potential biases, if they're brought out. Night and day performances for one side v. the other are universally considered shady. Again, though, the attorney has to bring that out fully - pointing out that courtesy is the "floor" for the emotional exchange between the witness and the hostile party, but the factual exchange should be just that - facts. Lying, coloring, spinning, omitting, covering up, telling patently ridiculous stories - none of this should happen after the witness took an oath to tell the truth, whole truth and nothing but. The witness shouldn't invade the fact finding provence of the jury. The witness should help all (including the jury) not just one side or another. Etc. But it all depends on what the witness actually *did* on the stand.
I guess I was wrong that NFL players are tested during the off season for drugs/peds et al.. AH partied and smoked like a rock star.
bosoxsue said:
Sort of. The maxim is more about getting sucker punched with an answer you weren't expecting. (Q: "What were you thinking?" A: "I was thinking your client beat up 4 other people, threatened me, and was always bragging about the time he did in jail.")
Re this issue, you can, as an attorney, get in big trouble if you ask a question which has no basis in fact. The classic "When did you stop beating your wife?" question, when there's no basis to believe the guy beat his wife at all. Depending on the question (and context) you're looking at anything from a reprimand from the judge, to a mistrial, to a reprimand from the bar (license loss or suspension) although the last would take some doing.
Here, they shouldn't have asked unless they had a factual basis to believe that happened.
Rovin Romine said:
Interesting that you point this out (emphasis bolded). Is it possible that they have enough to feel like this is a strong possibility, thus knowing that if AH's counsel ever called them out on it they would have an excuse to dive deeper? Which would then mean that AH's counsel would never call them out, etc etc.
I couldn't follow a lot of the cross. Any thoughts? Seems like we're not yet at the murder/disposal part of the cross. (Everyone seems to be going chronologically with the questions.)
lithos2003 said:
Yep. There's also an issue regarding defense counsel's legitimate scope of representation, which the prosecution can't impugn at trial, in front of the jury. However, "removing" evidence related to a crime is a great way for an attorney to get in major trouble (disbarred, independent criminal charges), so it's a pretty damn serious thing to suggest, even obliquely. And it was suggested in the context of a trial, which could result in a life sentence.
So this seems like the 800LB gorilla. I'd expect it to rocket one way or another, but it's just kind of sitting there. Weird. Perhaps there's a lot going on in the background which isn't being covered in the reporting. (It's not like the prosecution only learned whatever facts they are relying on this AM.)
Rovin Romine said:
I haven't been able to watch today at all but my impression of the hearing without the judge there, she specifically listed.
You can ask about A, C, D, G, O, P etc etc etc.
It seems like there was a lot they can't touch. Not sure if that's why.
How does this compare to a lawyer advising their client on a cleanup? Say, if the attorneys came over, so some issues and told Hernandez that he better bring in a cleaner her trusts to dispose of some shoes (etc)? Does that fall under the scope of "advising a client"?Rovin Romine said:
She definitely painted a picture of AH and Odin as "good friends" where as friday during the questioning without the jury indicated Odin was more of an acquaintance/pot dealer to AH. The prosecution tried to side track discussion of AH being close to Tanya because his Mother slept with Tanya's husband..I am thinking this is to paint a picture AH had genuine concern/feelings for Tanya and gave her money while she was in jail and not for hush money.
What sticks out to me is the contrast of how SJ remembers everything the Defense is asking her. She definately is coming across as amicable to the defense.
What sticks out to me is the contrast of how SJ remembers everything the Defense is asking her. She definately is coming across as amicable to the defense.
norm from cheers said:
NFL players are only tested once a year during training camp for recreational drugs unless they're in the Drug Program. Which makes it shocking they're ever caught since you know when the test is, you know what's tested for, then you are free for a year.
PED's are another story. This is what caught Wes Welker up. He was doing Molly laced with amphetamines I believe (or maybe it is one). They argued it was recreational, the NFL said it was a PED due to the amphetamines.
Thanks for the knowledge. I always wondered why the NFLPA didn't push back harder on testing for recreational drugs (especially pot, which isn't even arguably performance enhancing). I guess I know the answer -- the players would rather use their leverage on issues that matter than help guys who can't abstain from recreational drugs for a month or two per year.NortheasternPJ said:
CheapSeats said:
Yes.
How attorneys interact with criminal clients vis a vis undiscovered evidence is complicated. On one hand you want absolute loyalty/trust/confidence/communication between attorney and client which results in clear and accurate advice. On the other, you don't want attorneys being "accessories after the fact for hire."
It's hard to thumbnail, but good standards for attorneys to stay out of trouble are: "look but don't touch," and "don't advise your client to break the law." The more risky-but-probably-OK standards are "taking temporary custody of an item to investigate or test it" and "detailing to your client the possible effects of actions." You can be called out on these, and they can also explode in your client's face.
So, here, something like taking a sample of dirt on the shoe is OK, but you may have to disclose it and/or your test results. Or you could review the physical evidence with your client and ask what's in and out of police custody - you can even observe, "If the police find X, that's going to be a huge problem for your case." It's kind of mandatory that you do so. However, you can't cross the line and tell your client to destroy evidence. And, you can't do that yourself, obviously. I don't see a good scenario where the defense attorney or their agent takes possession of non-testable physical evidence. Or do a "survey" of good/bad/potential evidence with a third party (not their direct client).
Here's a good read re: attorneys and physical evidence for the curious.
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_magazine/cjsu11_uphoff.authcheckdam.pdf
Edit - BTW, clients who are convicted often have nothing to lose and may turn on their attorney (especially after consultation with jailhouse lawyers). It's best not to give them any angles to hold onto - which means when the stakes are high, there's always a certain amount of CYA action the attorney should take. When a convicted client files an appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel, they tell the appellate court 'this guy sucked,' give me a do-over. Most attorneys don't actively fight it all that hard, but won't throw themselves under the bus for a former client (i.e., lie and say they were ineffective when they weren't.) Sometimes convicted clients also file bar complaints which often have *nothing* to do with getting them any kind of appellate relief for their conviction - a bar complaint is just to attempt to discipline the attorney in a sort of "free standing" manner. However, the bar compliant creates an immediate conflict of interest, which limits what you can do to help. I've had to go through a few of those. It's sad. I even had one where I got an acquittal (trial NG) and my client went down on an unrelated case. So he complained to the bar that I didn't conduct the case (the one that I won!) in a manner he liked. Those aren't the kinds of guys you want to hand your bar license to for safekeeping. So read the points above in this context.
Rovin Romine said:
Thanks. What I'm trying to get at it whether (unlike, perhaps, a civil case) you've encountered juror sentiment that witnesses really play it straight with prosecutors. I could imagine a law and order jury being pissed at a witness because they fought a prosecutor (that's the government--you should tell them the truth); I could likewise could imagine jurors from communities that had problems with abusive cops/prosecutors having no problems with people being evasive. Have you personally run into anything like that?
If you can't raise the issue in court, how do you investigate and determine whether the opposing counsel did something like this?Rovin Romine said:
I get that it's super-sensitive, but at the same time when you're looking at how evidence left the building it seems pretty fundamental that you start by looking at everyone who went in and out of the building--even lawyers.
Personally, I think this is very effective -- they used the fiance to paint the timeline/picture, then they destroyed her credibility for all things where there are no backup documents (e.g., I assumed pot in the box) where she didn't already say the same thing on Friday.
SumnerH said:
Basically it would be an independent criminal investigation. Also, you can ask who went in and who went out, but the question was whether the defense attorneys had removed items. That crosses a line - you have to have a good faith basis to ask a question like that.
Joshv02 said:
I'd say overall that it helped the prosecution. I can't decide if they dropped the ball on this given the restrictions the judge may have placed on them. I also can't gauge the jury's reaction.
I'm tempted to say that it went well for the prosecution, but that they missed some opportunities (structure/followup questions/pointing out absurdities) that may have given more weight to the idea SJ was actively involved in covering up a real crime as AH's agent (as opposed to a young mother who is being unhelpful to the state.)
However, I think the paying off of wallace and the disposal of the box put her in the "she's clearly an accessory after the fact" category.
And I don't think she did much to help the defense with anything.
Shayanna testified she drove around 3 or 4 towns and ultimately left the box in a dumpster, likely in some residential area.
Did it come out why the police didn't triangulate her phone to figure out where she went? Did she leave her phone at home? If so, that's a fairly preplanned move, I'd suspect.
Did it come out why the police didn't triangulate her phone to figure out where she went? Did she leave her phone at home? If so, that's a fairly preplanned move, I'd suspect.
FelixMantilla said:
After reading this I'm even more confused than before... How does the defense help their case by getting her to remember all these other details? Are they trying to blame the lack of memory for these issues on stress? Because if I'm on that jury, the defense pointing out everything she can remember makes everything else even more unbelievable and helps the prosecution's case.
- Status