Aaron Hernandez Trial (Odin Lloyd)
- Thread starter Rovin Romine
- Start date
- Status
smastroyin said:
There's more, which are implied in the snipped part of your post. Basically, Bradley was shot in the face and lost an eye on Feb 13. He's probably heavily medicated and learning to compensate for a bit. He's probably also completely freaked out.
In June his attorney was ready to file a civil case. Which means Bradley probably first spoke with the attorney a month or two earlier (there's no especial reason to file ASAP without an investigation - especially against someone like AH who has relatively deep pockets and can nail you for filing a unsubstantiated lawsuit based on a sketchy witness). There also may have been some negotiation prior to the case being filed.
Four months under these circumstances is an exceptionally reasonable filing time. Bradley may not have wanted to involve the police for any number of reasons, and there's no rule that says he has to. (Sometimes that can slow down the resolution of the civil suit.) I think this is easily a matter of AH shoots B in front of (sketchy) witnesses. B has huge medical bills. B hires an attorney who tries to negotiate with AH/AH's attorney. It goes nowhere. B sues AH for compensation. AH wins if he settles because a lid is kept on things. B wins because a lid is kept on things and he gets something to compensate for the loss of his eye. Given AH's personality, that probably had no chance of working, but it's actually something of a win-win scenario. B may not have actually cared if AH went to jail, so long as what AH did was made right, in his eye(s).
There's an Odin joke in here somewhere, I'm sure.
Rovin Romine said:
This is somewhere between "needle skitters noisily off record" and "Ralph Wiggum's heart breaks".
SumnerH said:
Yeah. If I remember correctly she called "the Defendant" - it wasn't even like she used the Defendant's actual name and it took us all a second to figure out who she was calling.
Sometimes the "it wouldn't happen" stuff is so out there no one really knows how to react. I had another thing similar to this happen. (Again a long time ago, so don't hold me to details.) But basically we were all sidebar, mid-trial, mid-testimony, and I was discussing something (civilly) with prosecutor A. All of the sudden the judge, who is looking off to the side of us, bursts out with, "Are you talking to your witness about their testimony while they're on the stand?" to prosecutor B. This is in front of the jury. So prosecutor A and I whip our heads around to where prosecutor B is talking to the witness. The witness, a beat cop, palms his hands out over his chest like, "Hey don't shoot me." Prosecutor B's response is "What, I can't do that?"
When you don't know what to do "Objection, Sidebar" and/or "I'd like a hearing outside the presence of the jury," and/or "I'd like a minute to confer with my co-counsel" all work well. It gives you a few seconds to think - shit, what was that, what does it mean, what can I get from it, what do I do to preserve the record, do I want a mistrial at this point, etc.
Another whacky one was the judge, mid voir dire, accused a juror of lying about something. Probably accurately. The judge then orders the bailiff to take the juror into custody and appoints *me* (I'm the trial attorney for the defendant, and I'm conducting the voir dire!) to represent the juror and tells me to get ready for a contempt hearing. While the jury's sitting there. And I'm ostensibly a witness. And we're, like, you know, picking a jury, which she insists isn't tainted by any of this. You can't train or prep for shit like that.
Rovin Romine said:
"Your Honor, I will be happy to defend this right honorable prospective juror's civil liberties. Would you please grant me a minute to confer with my co-counsel?"
Well, I guess the alternative would be "Your Honor, that prospective juror is a scoundrel and a liar, and we all know it from having heard him lie to you. But if you force me to defend him, I will."
Rovin Romine said:
Sometimes the judges goof too. I worked for a judge as an intern, and another judge from the same courthouse shuffled over one day and said, "I think I just messed up." He was in the middle of a drug trial and the defendant was on the stand and I guess the PD was pretty bad and the examination was going into like it's third hour or something and the judge was pretty frustrated, so the judge stops the attorney and says, "Mr. X, when are you going to ask him if he did it?" Apparently, everything stood still, and nobody said a word for a couple of seconds -- this guy was a bit mercurial -- and he called a break on his own and then after talking to my judge went back and declared a mistrial.
BroodsSexton said:
It was a she. She was crying. The bailiff handcuffed her in the box and led her out. The jury looked completely appalled. The judge wanted me to continue with voir dire. Such a damn mess. We actually went sidebar. Thank goodness I had a couple of interns - I sent one back to the office for reinforcements, sent another to the hallway to see what the bailiff was doing with the accused juror. I laid everything I could on the record, and we just went with it. I got 4 other PDs in there as witnesses. We actually picked a jury. Then we did the hearing. The judge relented and while finding the juror guilty of contempt (in a way that violated a ton of procedural rules) sentenced the juror to an extra day of jury duty. Also, technically illegal, but hell, just come back tomorrow and don't lie. Or make a fuss, have a warrant issue, and fight the good fight from a jail cell.
As for the defendant, we got an acquittal on 12? of the 18? counts. The remaining six were misdemeanors. So the judge of course sentenced my client to the max - 364 days on each count (consecutively) - so that's 6 years. It ended up being a fast track reversal by the appellate court. I helped on the appeal - the attorney who drafted it was just completely flabbergasted. We had so many issues it was hard to prioritize them. I've been in whacky trials but that one was certainly one of the worst.
That sounds like the judge was expressing his religious freedom by consuming lots of peyote mushrooms.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
Well, it's a goof, but it sounds like the judge recognized the problem and did the honorable and correct thing. People screw up - it's how they handle it afterward that matters. I wasn't there for this, but I know a (former) judge who while sentencing a rapist said "Basically you have to wine them and dine them like the rest of us." The victim was present. It wasn't the first time his phrasing had led him astray. I believe he was told by the judicial ethics committee not to run for re-election.
Average Reds said:
At points during that debacle I was wondering if I had. Would have been the easiest way to explain some of what happened.
BroodsSexton said:
True. . .the point of all the anecdotes though is that while it's well and good to have a plan and to know how "most trials" happen, you're going to get things that are completely out of left field.
I have to say I've been impressed by Garsh thus far.
She looks a bit like a younger RBG. Seems to keep order in her court room too. Has been more than fair to the defense in my useless opinion.
I'm nowhere near the trial lawyer you are, but there's a maxim I've heard--totally accurate from my experience--that you never try the case you prepared for. Half the fun of a trial is the end of day debriefing to survey the damage (positive and negative) and reorient the next day's preparations.Rovin Romine said:
BroodsSexton said:
I hope you never have to defend me in court and enjoy "Half the fun" while I'm awaiting jail time.
Not much likelihood of that. It's almost all civil work for me. But would you prefer a lawyer who doesn't enjoy his job and doesn't have the flexibility to adjust? Don't worry, there are plenty out there for you to choose from.NortheasternPJ said:
Albert Breer retweeted
WBZ Boston News @cbsboston 22m22 minutes ago
Prosecution Expected To Rest In Aaron #HernandezTrial http://cbsloc.al/1DyFpba
So the prosecution will rest after video guy and the Medical Examiner? Are pictures of Lloyd's autopsy allowed? I imagine those pictures and his Mother and Fiancee walking out of the court room in tears would be a lingering memory for the Jury.
WBZ Boston News @cbsboston 22m22 minutes ago Prosecution Expected To Rest In Aaron #HernandezTrial http://cbsloc.al/1DyFpba
So the prosecution will rest after video guy and the Medical Examiner? Are pictures of Lloyd's autopsy allowed? I imagine those pictures and his Mother and Fiancee walking out of the court room in tears would be a lingering memory for the Jury.
Defense seems to be hammering IT guy and department for the way that the security stuff was handled. IT guy keeps using "hashtag" when he means "hash".
Curious how the jurors feel about him and the defense's line of questioning. While I think the IT guy is a bit bumbling, I don't think his analysis or workflow is wrong, though somewhat kludgy.
Curious how the jurors feel about him and the defense's line of questioning. While I think the IT guy is a bit bumbling, I don't think his analysis or workflow is wrong, though somewhat kludgy.
norm from cheers said:Albert Breer retweeted
Prosecution Expected To Rest In Aaron #HernandezTrial http://cbsloc.al/1DyFpba
So the prosecution will rest after video guy and the Medical Examiner? Are pictures of Lloyd's autopsy allowed? I imagine those pictures and his Mother and Fiancee walking out of the court room in tears would be a lingering memory for the Jury.
The pictures have to be approved by the judge. Normally they're allowed, unless there's something especially disturbing about them, or there's extraneous information on them.
I think there have been many instances of people leaving the courtroom in tears. That can get overplayed. But again, I'm kind of cynical about that. The jury "gets" that mom is grieving. They probably don't want to be constantly reminded of it when they're focusing on testimony/facts.
CheapSeats said:
Probably not "doctored" - but perhaps there's an issue with the timestamping. However, unless there was a major discrepancy, as a juror I probably wouldn't find enough reasonable doubt to acquit. If there was an issue that showed AH coming home potentially an hour before the murder, that would be of major significance to me as a juror.
(There's also the issue of proving a negative - just what is the defense alleging was "removed" that goes to reasonable doubt/AH's innocence.)
BroodsSexton said:
No plan ever survives an encounter with the enemy. Cliche, but true.
Personally, I think you're always best served by having the trial issues laid out in your mind like a flowchart or a decision-making tree. If you're going out on a dead end branch, you switch. If either branch works, you commit the witness to whatever path they've taken. But don't wait till the end of the day - adjust in the moment if possible.
I'm not a musician, but from what I've discussed with friends, flexibility in trial (and in questioning) is sort of like having "chops." You can use them to deal with common situations and quirks and get yourself set up for the next thing. So for example, if I have a police officer who says they're always 100% accurate and did everything correctly, I can attack that and use it. If I have a police officer who clams up or implies through their testimony they were wrong or mistake, I can exploit and develop that and use it. If I have a police officer who comes down in the middle, I can usually get them to move one way or the other.
This is a function of practice (lots), experience, feedback, and modeling on successful attorneys. I know many other defense/trial attorneys with similar or greater levels of skill - and each of us have our little specialities and tricks and flourishes. We're usually good in other contexts (depositions, hearings, etc.) as well - waffling witnesses are waffling witnesses, impeachment through omission is always impeachment through omission, a financial bias is a financial bias, etc.
That said, because I have the chops (experience), I can think "ahead" through many crosses or rehabs, or with someone balky on direct. I can ask questions in a way to link up with what I'm doing overall. When I began trying cases I was very mechanical and linear - question A, B, C, D, etc. If question C didn't work out I'd hammer at it until I could go on to D. Now, I think in terms of issue A, B, C, and can fire off the strings of questions to develop issue B, then A, then C, then the rest of A, if that's the way it's going to go with any given witness.
***
All this is not to say you shouldn't do the end of the day evaluation, of course. That's crucial. I think it's the mark of an excellent litigator to be able to say, mid-trial, "Based on what's happened, we're totally changing our argument/not calling witnesses/abandoning our plan for X, etc." FWIW, I usually (now) build in a piece in the voir dire and opening where I explain that some of the evidence might surprise *me* and we (the jury and I) are going to follow up those surprises and leads together. Super useful if a witness implodes on the stand or hands you a previously unknown bias or motivation. (Or if the jury is making faces at a line of questioning.)
Edit - BTW, I'm not trying to lecture or imply you don't know this - this is a sort of general springboard response for non-attorneys following the thread.
Medical examiner testifying now.
Good to watch a real one if you've never seen it. It's not quite "Qunicy."
Good to watch a real one if you've never seen it. It's not quite "Qunicy."
Rovin Romine said:
Holy central casting with this guy. Comb-over, bags under the eyes, whiff of formaldehyde. Phillip Marlowe probably had run-ins with the guy.
You can see the experience getting in the way. . .I don't think anyone explained anterior or posterior to the jury. Also, I'd have contextualized - start with if he's determined how many bullets struck OL, THEN say now let's go into how you reached that conclusion - how many wounds there are (5?/10?), then explain entry and exit wounds, then detail which were where, etc., etc.
I feel kind of bad for the jury. You don't want them to tune out (unless they're with you already) - but you don't want them to have to snatch and assemble the most important facts from a mass of testimony.
I feel kind of bad for the jury. You don't want them to tune out (unless they're with you already) - but you don't want them to have to snatch and assemble the most important facts from a mass of testimony.
Rovin Romine said:
Is this medical examiner similar to ones you've dealt with? I'm trying to gauge reality vs. dramatic representations.
Seems like he's great on certain topics, but I could see how asking certain open-ended questions would make things difficult ("So, how does someone die from a gunshot wound?")
Rovin Romine said:
Are you kidding me? I'm following this thread because you (and others) are putting on a clinic! This is CLE, to follow-along with trial, hear the breakdowns, and think about the trial dynamics.
I think the "chops" comparison is exactly right. The best cross-examinations I've seen are the ones where the lawyer is listening closely to the testimony, and then riffing off what is said, staying one step ahead of the witness. That's how you catch witnesses off-guard, and get to the truth (or, at least, to your version of the truth
.) If you sledge away in a linear fashion, the shiftiest witnesses can see what's coming and duck the cross.Let me make another meager contribution, for non-lawyers following along, which is a tangent to the "don't ask a question you don't know the answer to" line. Think about cross-examination as the lawyer testifying, through the witness, rather than the witness testifying in response to the lawyer's questions. It will change the perspective for you. When crossing a witness, the lawyer is constructing sequences of questions that generate "colloquy"--questions and answers--to support the conclusions he wants the jury to reach, whether those are conclusions of fact, or conclusions about the witness (shady, liar, biased, etc.) Strictly speaking, though the question is not part of the evidence, the question and answer are always read together for context, and the question forms an impression in the jury's mind just as the answer does. Questions and answers that are too jargony or technical wash out. On the other hand, framing a question in a way that connects gives you a chance to make a lasting impression. The trick is to (i) frame questions that "connect," and (ii) know that the witness has to answer them in a certain way, or be painted a liar. For some questions, like "did you have to change a diaper during the car trip?" the answer doesn't matter. The point is made with the question itself, whatever the answer is.
CheapSeats said:
He's pretty typical. MEs usually have a relatively small staff with doctors testifying often. So I'm sure this isn't his first time by a long shot. The prosecution can't get too open ended, as you point out, but this is a very leading direct.
I'm curious to see the strategy on cross. What will the defense "go" for? Probably that the ME can't testify to one type of bullet (caliber), can't place an exact time of death, perhaps can't speak to the distance the shots were fired from. Legally, if OL lost consciousness immediately, or felt no pain, they'd try to bring that out. (Don't think that's the case here though.) The defense will probably go into toxicology to see what's there. Maybe the ME will give them something about PCP effects/testing, etc.
Cross: Sultan just asked the ME if he can say to a medical certainty that the six pairs of wounds were caused by six different bullets. Magic bullet theory? Why even ask? (Not important re: the trial I think, but just an odd thing).
Cross Points:
ME can't determine who shot OL.
OL could have been unconscious early on during the shooting.
OL therefore would not have suffered conscious pain.
Stuff about the point to point transfer of OL's body - Boston to Cape Cod offices. (This is not really relevant as far as I can tell, except to suggest conspiracy - but to what end?)
Six month delay between autopsy and writing the report. (FWIW, that's normal-ish.)
Cross Points:
ME can't determine who shot OL.
OL could have been unconscious early on during the shooting.
OL therefore would not have suffered conscious pain.
Stuff about the point to point transfer of OL's body - Boston to Cape Cod offices. (This is not really relevant as far as I can tell, except to suggest conspiracy - but to what end?)
Six month delay between autopsy and writing the report. (FWIW, that's normal-ish.)
Prosecution rests.
No testimony tomorrow. Jury back on Monday. Attorneys to discuss jury instructions tomorrow; don't know if that's going to be live streamed, but it's often a preview into what the closing arguments will be. (To an extent.)
Looks like the defense will present a case on Monday. Apparently there's a pending motion as to whether a Dr. Greenblatt? can testify. I expect that's their PCP expert?
The judge expects the case to go to the jury next week - i.e., for the sides to make closing arguments and for the jury to be instructed/charged and retire to the jury room to deliberate.
***
Depending on the defense case in chief, the prosecution may have the option of calling rebuttal witnesses. So we'll see.
No testimony tomorrow. Jury back on Monday. Attorneys to discuss jury instructions tomorrow; don't know if that's going to be live streamed, but it's often a preview into what the closing arguments will be. (To an extent.)
Looks like the defense will present a case on Monday. Apparently there's a pending motion as to whether a Dr. Greenblatt? can testify. I expect that's their PCP expert?
The judge expects the case to go to the jury next week - i.e., for the sides to make closing arguments and for the jury to be instructed/charged and retire to the jury room to deliberate.
***
Depending on the defense case in chief, the prosecution may have the option of calling rebuttal witnesses. So we'll see.
Rovin Romine said:
As a juror these two things would probably stick with me a little bit. Probably not enough to discredit him as a witness, but it seemed odd to me, especially with his attempt at justifying it.
BroodsSexton said:
Well, it's kind of you to say this is useful. I feel like I should be inserting 100 caveats in every post though.
I think the above is an excellent way to conceptualize what cross examination is. To spin off this, one of my fav. trial partners (we've done about 20 jury trials together) has that rare skill of using the open ended question in cross. Turns my hair white sometimes, but I've come to trust him with this. He usually boxes a witness in, leaves an obvious escape hatch, pops the open ended question, lets the witness run all the way out through the hatch, then cuts 'em down with a series of impeachments/exposing questions that shows the absurdity of the witness's response. We all do that in cross to some extent, but he's a sort of down-to-earth/placid/fatherly type of figure, so when he gently asks "why did you do that?" the jury really follows the witness rabbiting. Which makes the subsequent destruction of the "why answer" that much more brutal. He did it to one poor guy twice. The second "why" was, "so why couldn't you just tell the jury the truth, like you swore to?" Lame excuse about job pressure came out. The followup string of questions was awful for the witness. One of the follow-up questions was something like, "So a getting a good performance review is more important than your sacred honor before your God and this Jury?" There's no good way anyone gets out of that. But they do try.
Prosecution should have followed up with a couple of questions about procedure and workload on redirect. But they may have assumed that the jury would think it was no big deal. (Because from where I'm sitting, it's not.)CheapSeats said:
That would be a mistake. Jurors don't know squat about that. To us, those are pretty routine matters, but some dude off the street who sees crime solved in 60-minute segments each week could easily be convinced it was the shadiest thing ever.
Rovin Romine said:
I have no idea why a defense attorney would attempt to elicit these facts from the ME.
The pain and suffering of a victim is utterly and completely irrelevant to the case if AH is innocent of the crime. Asking the jury to even consider that is akin to asking them to weigh mitigating factors for a crime you are claiming AH did not commit.
Or am I missing something?
AH wasn't there, but if he was there, he didn't take part in the shooting, but if he did take part in the shooting it was because he was afraid of the others and shot an already-dead OL.Average Reds said:
Duh.
Average Reds said:
That's probably for the civil suit--damages are generally higher if you suffer before you die.
Average Reds said:
It can be used by the prosecution to establish "extreme atrocity or cruelty" as an element of Murder in the First Degree. A mere lack of pain does not get the defendant out of that box though, since there are other factors.
The defense will argue that whatever happened, there was no atrocity based on suffering, so M1 can't attach (wasn't proven) under that theory.
The state should have redirected with (if needed, I don't know if they got this on direct) the fact that OL could have been alive and conscious for minutes, etc.
***
Basically, as I read the MA instructions, the possible killing crimes are as follows, with some wrinkles left out as they do not seem to qualify (such as self defense):
Involuntary Manslaughter: basically the defendant caused the death of OL through intentional conduct that was reckless by any objective standard. (Accidentally/intentionally shooting a gun at someone qualifies.) No intent to kill, per se.
Voluntary Manslaughter: the defendant caused the death of OL and intended to kill him, or cause previous bodily harm, or deliberately did something (an act) that was likely to result in death. (Deliberately shooting a gun at someone qualifies.)
Felony Murder: (I don't see the facts for it as having been developed).
Second Degree Murder: Same as Voluntary Manslaughter but, additionally, there can be no mitigating circumstances. (Or to say it another way, the crime is "naturally" M2, but If there are mitigating circumstances, M2 becomes VM).
Mitigating circumstances are ONLY 1) killing in the heat of passion after reasonable provocation, 2) killing in the heat of passion after sudden combat had begun, 3) legitimately defending one's self or another but though the use of excessive force. None of these apply here.
First Degree Murder: two kinds:
Premeditated: the defendant caused the death of OL, intended to kill, premeditated the killing (planning before hand), and there can be no mitigating circumstances.
Atrocity or Cruelty: Same as Voluntary Manslaughter, but, the murder had to be committed with atrocity or cruelty and there can be no mitigating circumstances.
So basically, if the prosecution proves 1) premeditation, or 2) cruelty, they have M1. Otherwise, they have M2. If the jury believes a playing with guns theory, they have IM. AH gets tied to all of this through joint venture (accomplice after the fact) theory.
I think the state has an excellent argument for M1, premeditated, given the prep to get OL alone and the coverup, through Joint Venture.
***
Edit: PS - Kudos to Maufman who called this in an earlier post.
Shelterdog said:
I'm vaguely aware that there are different burdens and such for civil trials, but the issue of suffering made me wonder whether or not the "I'm with NFL just so you know" texts and things of that nature would be allowed in as evidence in a civil trial to argue something along the lines of "he knew he was being driven to his death."
It seems OK as a present sense impression if MA allows that as a hearsay exception, and in a civil trial there is no confrontation clause problem (the constitutional right of a defendant to cross examine all who testify (6th amendment) only applies in criminal trials).Jed Zeppelin said:
Kevin Youkulele said:
And even if you were applying the exact same standard the civil plaintiffs would get to take their own shot on a close issue with a different judge.
I was thinking about the Jury.. who have had @ 2 months of trial under their belts. I looked it up and it's $50 a day (taxable). What does a jurist do if they fall on hard times, behind on bills because $250 a week doesn't cut it? I mean who can take 2 months off from work that works? Does MA offer some help financially?
Not sure of others, and almost definitely not for low paying jobs, but my company gives you paid leave for jury duty. You have to exhaust all vacation/personal/sick days first but still, nice benefit.
Arguing directed verdict now.
ed: short argument, quickly denied (of course).
Now on to jury instructions. These are probably only interesting for people interested in the details on the law -- .e.g., right now they are debating joint-venture theories for possession of a firearm.
Court not giving a Bowden instruction (e.g., the police omitted to do certain things). (http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/courts-and-judges/courts/district-court/jury-instructions-criminal/3740-evidence-omissions-in-police-investigations.pdf)
Another interesting one: when AH said "I didn't do it" (to his fiance, Kraft, and Briggs), the Commonwealth cannot use that to show that he knew he was guilty b/c it was inconsistent with all the other evidence (and therefore was manipulating those people). Fun little give/take, and the prosecution screwed the pouch on the that one (they wouldn't have wanted those denials to come in if they couldn't use them, and now they effectively cannot).
ed: short argument, quickly denied (of course).
Now on to jury instructions. These are probably only interesting for people interested in the details on the law -- .e.g., right now they are debating joint-venture theories for possession of a firearm.
Court not giving a Bowden instruction (e.g., the police omitted to do certain things). (http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/courts-and-judges/courts/district-court/jury-instructions-criminal/3740-evidence-omissions-in-police-investigations.pdf)
Another interesting one: when AH said "I didn't do it" (to his fiance, Kraft, and Briggs), the Commonwealth cannot use that to show that he knew he was guilty b/c it was inconsistent with all the other evidence (and therefore was manipulating those people). Fun little give/take, and the prosecution screwed the pouch on the that one (they wouldn't have wanted those denials to come in if they couldn't use them, and now they effectively cannot).
- Status