Aaron Hernandez Trial (Odin Lloyd)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
Now the defense is arguing about how to impeach (can they use pending charges), but in the end -- Bradley and AH were friends, and Bradley is a really bad guy, and AH is friends with him, so while the impeachment is nice its still not a good person to be friends with.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
Regardless of how good he looks or composes himself on the stand. This is a get in, get out witness. Short and sweet. Any more than that could be trouble.
 
I'd get the testimony about the box and the gun in Florida, and I'd sit down. Who cares if AH was paranoid, thought he was being tailed, who his dope buddies were. This guy has testimony that can get you a mistrial. I wouldn't play around eliciting testimony on things that have already been covered by other witnesses.
 

Omar's Wacky Neighbor

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
16,627
Leaving in a bit to the studio :)
Rovin Romine said:
When I was a very young PD, I saw a newly hired prosecutor try to call the defendant as a witness.  (We had all been sort of wondering why the case was going to trial, since it didn't seem the state had any witnesses present to call, but whatever.)
 
There was this awful pained silence in the courtroom.  Some of the cops who were waiting on other cases winced and grimaced. I think the court reporter threw up her hands.  I realized everyone was looking at me, so I lamely rolled out an "Um. . .objection?"
 
Yeah, I don't understand it either.  It was awhile ago, so the details are fuzzy. (I don't even remember my client.)  Just one of those bizarre things.   I think the prosecutor thought she could call the defendant to establish neutral background information - and under certain circumstance one can, say to establish the height of the defendant, or show a tattoo or something (basically stuff that's not "testimony."  She wanted far more than that though.  
Wow, I guess it's true;  some families really don't own any TVs....
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,483
The 718
I missed all of the arguments over calling Bradley in the first place.  Seems like an incredibly inflammatory/potentially prejudicial witness.  
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
OilCanShotTupac said:
I missed all of the arguments over calling Bradley in the first place.  Seems like an incredibly inflammatory/potentially prejudicial witness.  
 
Evidence is *supposed* to be prejudicial. What it can't be is signficantly more prejudicial than probative. "He kept a gun in a safe that looks kinda like that thing she carried to the dumpster" is quite probative.
 
AH shot him in the face.  He has the chance to help AH get locked up for a long time. I dont think he'll stray far from the script and jeopardize that.
 

CheapSeats

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2011
393
What's the story with the silver gun with a brown handle? Someone testified that the murder weapon was a Glock, correct? 
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
joe dokes said:
 
Evidence is *supposed* to be prejudicial. What it can't be is signficantly more prejudicial than probative. "He kept a gun in a safe that looks kinda like that thing she carried to the dumpster" is quite probative.
 
AH shot him in the face.  He has the chance to help AH get locked up for a long time. I dont think he'll stray far from the script and jeopardize that.
He's been very well coached so far (by a well known public defender).
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
Finally!  With all the guns and drugs, we get a Ravens connection.  Bradley met Pappoo (Oscar Hernandez) at a Ravens super bowl party in FL.  
It was just a matter of time.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,690
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Some of these questions:
 
"Did you see the gun?"  "How often?" (I'm half expecting him to say, "Yeah, he shot me in the face with it.")
 
Edit - he seems like a very articulate witness.  The bit about having all the opportunities to tell the truth and first mentioning papu late in the process is something the prosecutor should have done with SJ inventing the weed smell on the stand.  Personally, I'd go further and point out the whole thing about swearing under oath, knowing it was an important proceeding, catching a killer, etc.  
 

theapportioner

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
5,069
Sounds like the defense is going to make a big deal of the fact that the gun in the box wasn't a glock.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
theapportioner said:
Sounds like the defense is going to make a big deal of the fact that the gun in the box wasn't a glock.
 Because the multimillionaire gun runner couldn't have had two guns.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,690
Miami (oh, Miami!)
theapportioner said:
Sounds like the defense is going to make a big deal of the fact that the gun in the box wasn't a glock.
 
I believe Bradley is the first to say there was a lockbox with a gun and weed downstairs.   If that's believable (which it seems to be - the other evidence is pointing to it), then this hurts the defense badly.   The fact he kept a silver gun it in does not mean he didn't keep the black glock in in also or at some other point.  It basically cuts hard against the "SJ disposed of weed and a bong" argument.  
 
It may help the defense in accounting for the weight of the box, but they still need to explain away the black gun in AH's hand right after the shooting.  
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
joe dokes said:
 
Evidence is *supposed* to be prejudicial. What it can't be is signficantly more prejudicial than probative. "He kept a gun in a safe that looks kinda like that thing she carried to the dumpster" is quite probative.
 
AH shot him in the face.  He has the chance to help AH get locked up for a long time. I dont think he'll stray far from the script and jeopardize that.
 
Calm down. Had Bradley wanted justice for being shot in the face, he could have gone to the police after being shot in the face. Bradley's response was to file a civil lawsuit, asking to get paid.
 
I'm 99% sure Bradley isn't testifying because he's a citizen who believes in the judicial process. 
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,690
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Interesting impeachment(s).  When in FL, I can when impeaching a witness, ask if they've been convicted of a felony and how many times - that's it.  No details.  Unless they deny, in which case I can go into details. 
 
Let's see if the prosecutor goes with prior consistent statements re: selling weed to AH.  
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
theapportioner said:
Defense is trying to dirty him up for sure...
 
The problem for them is that every time they dirty up someone who hung out with Hernandez it becomes clearer that Hernandez liked hanging out with criminal elements.
 

epraz

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2002
6,176
Yeah, talking about the weapons charges could make Bradley more credible on his testimony regarding AH's gun.  He also comes across really well, for all the charges.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,690
Miami (oh, Miami!)
This is really interesting.  
 
Even with all the impeachment he's coming off as pretty straightforward.  The upshot is that I find his testimony about the box credible.  Now, if he was allowed to be testify that AH shot him, I might not (as a jury member) believe anything he said.  But it looks like the prosecution put on a very flawed person (a dealer) who dealt to AH and saw a lockbox and a gun.   And it looks like the defense is freaking out about this relatively minor testimony and is getting out the elephant guns.  The lady doth protest too much.  
 
I'm probably alone in this. 
 
Edit - it's important testimony, insofar as it wraps things up, but it's nothing that wasn't already heavily implied. Plus it's not like Bradley said he saw the murder weapon in the box - he clearly said he saw a different gun.  If he was going to lie, why not just say he saw a glock in the basement box?  
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
I gotta say I kind of like this guy and I wouldn't be surprised if the juror does to.  He seems (to me) to be fundamentally honest and he seems to be trying his best, he knows he's in jail for something, he's not denying that, but he has no fucking idea what the charges are against him and he's as perplexed by the legal system as everybody else
 

CheapSeats

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2011
393
This doesn't seem like it's going in a good direction for the defense. I'd say the person who I'd want to testify about guns and weed is the guy who has been busted for guns and weed. He doesn't seem noncredible, but his "I dont't recall/I didn't know I was charged with that" seems weird.  I'd probably trust him if I were on the jury, though.
 

CheapSeats

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2011
393
Rovin Romine said:
And it looks like the defense is freaking out about this relatively minor testimony and is getting out the elephant guns.  The lady doth protest too much.  
 
I'm probably alone in this. 
 
This was my read as well.  It's a lot of work to muddy waters that already seem pretty opaque.  Why not just confirm that he never saw the Glock in Hernandez house and he only saw the silver gun? Underline the statement the Hernandez put the Glock down in Florida, and be done.  
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
Rovin Romine said:
This is really interesting.  
 
Even with all the impeachment he's coming off as pretty straightforward.  The upshot is that I find his testimony about the box credible.  Now, if he was allowed to be testify that AH shot him, I might not (as a jury member) believe anything he said.  But it looks like the prosecution put on a very flawed person (a dealer) who dealt to AH and saw a lockbox and a gun.   And it looks like the defense is freaking out about this relatively minor testimony and is getting out the elephant guns.  The lady doth protest too much.  
 
I'm probably alone in this. 
 
Edit - it's important testimony, insofar as it wraps things up, but it's nothing that wasn't already heavily implied. Plus it's not like Bradley said he saw the murder weapon in the box - he clearly said he saw a different gun.  If he was going to lie, why not just say he saw a glock in the basement box?  
 
Given that there appears to be some testimony it was a different gun, why wouldn't defense be happy that this explains why SJ got rid of the box?  Their bigger problem is how suspicious that looks, I think, and this testimony seems to help on that.

What am I missing---you've followed a lot more closely than I
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
Shelterdog said:
 
The problem for them is that every time they dirty up someone who hung out with Hernandez it becomes clearer that Hernandez liked hanging out with criminal elements.
It's classic technique to impeach the witness. They have to attack credibility any way they can so they can say on close these witnesses and their testimony are unreliable, or they are outright lying. They are not going to have their client testify, so that argument won't be used on him. So for them bad is bad by association, but they aren't interested in saying these are bad people, but in saying they aren't to be believed because of x, y, z.
 
The prosecution will be making the classic point on close that when you go to hell to prosecute the devil, you don't get priests and nuns as witnesses, which is actually no longer accurate, you've got some priest down there now, but that's the point. Bad guys hang out with bad guys and we don't get to pick the witnesses.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
This also plays into the defense argument. The box contains things a guy like AH needs to get rid of in case the cops might search his house. It's the box cops can never find regardless of a murder. Totally understandable the SJ knew and understood that, and even without knowing the contents, she was aware it needed to be ditched. It could completely explain the ditching of illegal items in a box that did not contain a gun. 
 
Again, cuts both ways.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
PaulinMyrBch said:
It's classic technique to impeach the witness. They have to attack credibility any way they can so they can say on close these witnesses and their testimony are unreliable, or they are outright lying. They are not going to have their client testify, so that argument won't be used on him. So for them bad is bad by association, but they aren't interested in saying these are bad people, but in saying they aren't to be believed because of x, y, z.
 
The prosecution will be making the classic point on close that when you go to hell to prosecute the devil, you don't get priests and nuns as witnesses, which is actually no longer accurate, you've got some priest down there now, but that's the point. Bad guys hang out with bad guys and we don't get to pick the witnesses.
 
I'm aware it's a classic technique, I'm trying to point out that in this case it's a bit of a catch-22:Hernandez is a millionaire star athlete and a new father, he shouldn't be hanging out with bad guys.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,690
Miami (oh, Miami!)
CheapSeats said:
 
This was my read as well.  It's a lot of work to muddy waters that already seem pretty opaque.  Why not just confirm that he never saw the Glock in Hernandez house and he only saw the silver gun? Underline the statement the Hernandez put the Glock down in Florida, and be done.  
 
 
Well, you pretty much have to bring out the fact that he's a convicted felon and that he has pending charges and so has an incentive to alter his testimony.  But that can happen quickly.  Cementing him as a shady dealer in weed and guns who is buddy buddy with a paranoid AH isn't the best idea.
 
Prosecution is bringing it on redirect.  Bradley's initial testimony to the grand jury was that he saw AH with a glock in FL.  
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
Shelterdog said:
 
I'm aware it's a classic technique, I'm trying to point out that in this case it's a bit of a catch-22:Hernandez is a millionaire star athlete and a new father, he shouldn't be hanging out with bad guys.
Agreed.
AH's lawyers basically have to argue that Bradley shouldn't be believed because he is a bad bad man... who hung out with Aaron Hernandez.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
Shelterdog said:
 
I'm aware it's a classic technique, I'm trying to point out that in this case it's a bit of a catch-22:Hernandez is a millionaire star athlete and a new father, he shouldn't be hanging out with bad guys.
Understood, necessary evil for the defense. Maybe the defense will call the virgin Tim Tebow as a character witness, haha.
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
Um.  That seemed like a bad idea.  
Did the prosecution just ask if the gun they think is like the murder weapon was the one Bradly saw... and he said no?  Hard to tell if that is what happened, but... if so, not a good move.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
soxfan121 said:
 
Calm down. Had Bradley wanted justice for being shot in the face, he could have gone to the police after being shot in the face. Bradley's response was to file a civil lawsuit, asking to get paid.
 
I'm 99% sure Bradley isn't testifying because he's a citizen who believes in the judicial process. 
 
I was not trying to suggest he was doing this out of altruism.  It was simply: which is better --  just money, or money plus helping the guy get locked up.
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
if Bradley has pending charges against him in MA... after the prosecution asked "you don't have any pending charges in MA, do you"... that is real fuck up.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,690
Miami (oh, Miami!)
PaulinMyrBch said:
This also plays into the defense argument. The box contains things a guy like AH needs to get rid of in case the cops might search his house. It's the box cops can never find regardless of a murder. Totally understandable the SJ knew and understood that, and even without knowing the contents, she was aware it needed to be ditched. It could completely explain the ditching of illegal items in a box that did not contain a gun. 
 
Again, cuts both ways.
 
I agree with every thing you say.  I'm curious as to why the defense didn't make the bolded front and center though, though the crosses.  Maybe they did and I missed it.  But I'd have talked about things like AH losing his endorsements if it became known he smoked weed - maybe by asking about M.Phelps, etc.  You can say weed smoking is on the way to becoming legal, but it's a huge risk for AH financially.  You can even point out that the publicity about the trial and AH's lifestyle cost him his job and his endorsements, so the risk is real. 
 
The defense can do that on close, but IMO, unless you're blindsiding the prosecution with a "crazy closing argument," there's often nothing to lose by floating that argument in front of jury, mid trial, through skillful cross.   You don't want to float your argument mid trial and have the prosecution close it down by asking counter questions, but if it's safe to bring up, you want the jury thinking about it as the evidence comes in.  (Caveats about styles, no one approach being right, etc.) 
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,690
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Joshv02 said:
Um.  That seemed like a bad idea.  
Did the prosecution just ask if the gun they think is like the murder weapon was the one Bradly saw... and he said no?  Hard to tell if that is what happened, but... if so, not a good move.
Yep.  And why not ask if it was the gun he saw in FL?  Weird move. 
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Clearly. My point is that Bradley's actions - admissible and inadmissible - are about as far from altruism as possible.

Revenge? Sure. Justice? That ship sailed, at least on Bradley getting shot in the face when Bradley refused to go to law enforvcemwnt and instead tried to shake AH down for some cold, hard pain and suffering.
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
Rovin Romine said:
Yep.  And why not ask if it was the gun he saw in FL?  Weird move. 
The entire line of question post-cross was weird.  Seems like they should have sat down since they didn't know where they were going.  
 

knuck

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2010
148
Austin, TX
As a non-lawyer, he seemed pretty believable on direct to me.
Then on redirect even with all the questions about the his pending cases, he seemed pretty straight forward and still pretty believable.
 
Now it just seems like we are playing lawyer games or he knows something that he isn't allowed to say.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,690
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Joshv02 said:
if Bradley has pending charges against him in MA... after the prosecution asked "you don't have any pending charges in MA, do you"... that is real fuck up.
 
I think he had a violation of probation pending - or admitted to it already?  It wasn't very clear to me, and I have some context. 
 
Basically one of my biggest critiques (both sides) all thought this trial is that they're not contextualizing a lot of the information though more precise questioning or followup questions. 
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,690
Miami (oh, Miami!)
soxfan121 said:
Clearly. My point is that Bradley's actions - admissible and inadmissible - are about as far from altruism as possible.

Revenge? Sure. Justice? That ship sailed, at least on Bradley getting shot in the face when Bradley refused to go to law enforvcemwnt and instead tried to shake AH down for some cold, hard pain and suffering.
 
FWIW, I think Florida law enforcement was involved, but I'm not sure why the case was dropped or not pursued.  Or if Bradley went to FLLE, or they came to him as a shooting victim or what.   It's possible they told him they couldn't pursue a celebrity case based on his word/injury alone.  
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
Rovin Romine said:
 
I think he had a violation of probation pending - or admitted to it already?  It wasn't very clear to me, and I have some context. 
 
Basically one of my biggest critiques (both sides) all thought this trial is that they're not contextualizing a lot of the information though more precise questioning or followup questions. 
 
Not that I could do better but that last half hour was a giant pile of shit.  I have no idea whether he changed his testimony at some point, I'm totally confused about what the charges are against him, and I'm totally perplexed why Rankin kept asking him if he's being held for crime X instead of just asking if he's being charged for Y (I assume the confusion is that Bradley thought he was being held for the most serious of the charges against him, and not for all of them--which might be how his lawyer explained things to him).
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Rovin Romine said:
 
FWIW, I think Florida law enforcement was involved, but I'm not sure why the case was dropped or not pursued.  Or if Bradley went to FLLE, or they came to him as a shooting victim or what.   It's possible they told him they couldn't pursue a celebrity case based on his word/injury alone.  
 
I don't have a link handy and my memory may be faulty but I think I recall Bradley declined to give any info to FLLE and instead filed civil charges. 
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
Linky
 
 
Relevant stuff below:
 
Bradley was initially hospitalized in West Palm Beach, Fla., and while there, he offered police only a vague description of his assailants, telling an investigator he only knew he was shot by "black and Hispanic" men, according to a Palm Beach County Sheriff's report obtained by USA TODAY Sports. The officer who interviewed Bradley wrote that when Bradley refused to cooperate further, the case was listed as inactive.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
There was a paperwork error with the original suit on 6/13/13, so it's unclear if Hernandez was served before the murder of Odin Lloyd (6/17), but the suit was re-filed July 1, 2013 and is still pending.
 
So, why would he only seek $100K?  
Is it because he is a liar and has no evidence and was seeking a basic settlement to go away?  So, sue for $100K hoping AH would throw him a 30-50K bone and no trial?
Or is it because he had an oral agreement with AH to take care of his medical bills that AH decided he didn't want to make good on?  
 
Why would he not tell FLLE?
Is it because he didn't want to get his buddy in trouble for gun charges, etc.?  (AH does not have the right to carry in Florida, allegedly)
Is it because he was doing some fucked up shit that night too and didn't want to get himself in trouble?
Is it because there are no facts to back up his claim and wanted to keep things from being investigated?
 
He's not on trial today, but I don't think it's as simple as "oh he's clearly out for money"
 
Without anything in the way of evidence, but based on actions, it seems one of two stories:
- Bradley agreed to cover-up the shooting in exchange for AH taking care of him, then AH reneged or Bradley asked for extra or whatever.
- Bradley or someone else was actually responsible for Bradley getting shot, he is just suing AH because the facts are murky and AH has cash.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.