Aaron Hernandez Trial (Odin Lloyd)

[Rovin Romine]

Looks like the defense has allowed some things into evidence which they're now arguing should not apply to certain instructions (e.g., AH's denials to SJ should not be contradictory statements for the purposes of the consciousness of guilt instruction.)  
 
It's good for the defense to limit instructions whenever possible, but, should they have intended to do that, they may have been better off just keeping that evidence out in the first place.  IMO juries will use the instructions, but they're not particularly keen in limiting the application of evidence to those instructions.  This is because the final vote is guilty or not guilty - there's not a checklist (beyond the elements of the crime) for the jury to pore over.  So I'd be kind of surprised if AH's denials and statements to Kraft ("I was at a club") didn't carry significant weight with the jury, regardless of the instructions.   
 
Perhaps some SOSH former jurors would share how their deliberation process worked in the jury room?  Did everyone take turns speaking?  Did you use the instructions and refer to them?  Did you give particular weight to something one of the attorneys said in terms of summing up the case? (The privacy of a jury's deliberations is important, but jurors can choose to share what they want.)

 

[Joshv02]

So I'd be kind of surprised if AH's denials and statements to Kraft ("I was at a club") didn't carry significant weight with the jury, regardless of the instructions.   

Why would that be negative towards AH?  The defense will just argue that he was consistent, and the prosecution cannot use the denials to prove consciousness of guilt.
 
The judge specifically said that the statements like "I was at a club" can be utilized by the prosecution, just not the abject denials.

 

[epraz]

Perhaps some SOSH former jurors would share how their deliberation process worked in the jury room?  Did everyone take turns speaking?  Did you use the instructions and refer to them?  Did you give particular weight to something one of the attorneys said in terms of summing up the case? (The privacy of a jury's deliberations is important, but jurors can choose to share what they want.)

 
I was on a jury for a pretty simple 2.5 day criminal weapon possession case in New York.  We acquitted in 45 minutes, and barely even reviewed the instructions, because nobody believed the cops who testified.  I don't think jury instructions or closings could've changed things.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Also, the Gash Scarf thing should be more of a meme.  
 
While we're on Garsh, I can't speak to her rulings since I'm not well versed enough in MA caselaw to say how her rulings are located.  Hoewver, I remain impressed.  She's certainly composed, well-prepared, and is interested in the issues.  She does not appear to get her back up when things get fractious, but pushes forward on the legal issue at hand.  I believe she want to get to the "right conclusion."  I'd also say she's slightly "pro-defense" on close calls, which is a plus in my book (not just because of my own inclinations - pro-state judges often end up being appealed and drawing out or distorting the process.) 
 
***
Jury Instructions:
 
Sultan's been great on the jury instruction part of this trial (often called "the charging conference") - in terms of style and argumentation.  He's very clear and locates his arguments in easily identified principles and cases.  He's also well informed as to the trend of the cases vis a vis the model instructions.  Meaning he's up on the latest developments and is pointing the court toward how the instructions might change.  Prosecution's not bad, but Sultan is a notch above. 
 
For our casual readers, the Jury Instructions are what's read (and often given, in paper form) to the jury at the close of the case.  The jury does not go do legal research on their own.  The Instructions define things like reasonable doubt, and what "murder" actually is (as opposed to what "manslaughter" actually is.)  They are, essentially, the "rules" that the jury applies to the facts they've heard.  
 
To be fair, jury instructions have to "track" the recent cases and developments in the law - i.e., they have to reflect what the law actually is, right now, for everyone.  Usually "model" jury instructions are decided upon by a committee of attorneys organized by the state Bar, and those instructions are reviewed, modified, approved, and published by the highest court in that jurisdiction.  However, each case is unique and sometimes the court hearing the case will approve modified jury instructions, based on what the attorneys propose, and what cases have been reviewed since the last approved model jury instruction.  Since not every contingency can be proposed in a model instruction, sometimes courts will approve completely customized jury instructions on fringe issues.  
 
In closing, attorneys will be able to use the instructions in their arguments.  Often the state will blow up the instructions on a screen and go point by point.  The defense may do the same, but should repeat the language of the burden and reasonable doubt standard over and over.  "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, X.  X is an example of exact-instruction-language.  X is an example of exact-instruction-language because blah-blah-blah.   Also, Y.  Y is an example of exact-instruction-language.  Y is an example of exact-instruction-language because blah-blah-blah."  The point is to make sure that when the jury reads or hears or reviews the instructions, they associate X, Y and Z with "reasonable doubt" or an "abiding conviction of guilt" or whatnot.  (Caveat is that if your case truly sucks, don't point it out by hewing to the language of the instructions, which will not help.)
 
Therefore, jury instructions can be absolutely crucial in contextualizing evidence for the jury.   Any tweaks you can make in the charging conference can go a long way.  
 
***
Seeing Sultan do so well with this piece makes me reflect that there's very little in this case that I'd hold up as an aspirational model for how to prosecute or defend a case.  There were some good bits, and the prosecution had some truly wonderful rebuttals, and as noted, Sultan's showing in this piece is very very good.  (Also voir dire wasn't televised - and that can basically decide the case before a single argument is made.  We can't form an opinion on it.)
 
I'd still say this trial was worth following.  There were good examples of *many* issues and circumstances that come up in criminal trials; I'd say nearly all those things were done in a workmanlike enough manner.  DNA, Fingerprinting, crime scene, police interviews, camera/video evidence, cell phone evidence (and triangulation), firearms and ballistics, etc.  That may sound like it's damning with faint praise, but it's not.  "Not screwing up a case" is sometimes harder than it sounds - especially with months of testimony. 
 
I think we saw pieces of the questioning that were good (or more rarely, excellent).  But I didn't see anything that made me slap my hand on my desk and say "fucking brilliant."  (In fairness, sometimes that's just not there, but I was hoping to pick up something new.)
 
Strategically, the trial is harder for me to assess.  There were some head scratching things that might have made sense with more information.  Neither side seemed organized beyond basic chronology.  The jury seems to have been left unoriented for significant parts of the prosecution and defense theories.  
 
It's also problematic for us (the public) to speculate on strategy and tactics since we have access to information the jury does not have.  That's always going to bias our impression.  For example, when Bradley testified, we all know AH shot him in the face.  The jury probably won't know the guy from Adam - how they weigh his testimony in isolation is tough for us to guess.  We simply don't have the same emotional/instinctive reaction as they do. 
 
Perhaps the closes will shed light on the above.  
 
Anyway, my somewhat rambling summary (prior to close) is that this has been interesting, has generated some really good conversations and questions and speculations, and we're not quite done yet.  Defense still has a case in chief.  And we still have the closing arguments.  

 

[Rovin Romine]

Why would that be negative towards AH?  The defense will just argue that he was consistent, and the prosecution cannot use the denials to prove consciousness of guilt.
 
The judge specifically said that the statements like "I was at a club" can be utilized by the prosecution, just not the abject denials.

 
Right now it appears that the statements can be used by the prosecution, but they can't be used to argue that its proof of consciousness of guilt.  (Unless I misheard.)  That can sort of tie the prosecutions' hands in terms of what they say in the closing arguments.  However, all the prosecution has to say is that "AH looked Kraft in the eye and said he was at a club."  It is what it is.  There's no way he was at a club.  They don't have to argue in closing that it *means* anything.  They just have to remind the jury that it happened. The jury will draw their own conclusions and apply (probably regardless of the instructions).
 
The Jenkins statement - "Did you do it?"  AH: "No." was given a lot of weight by our SOSH crew.   I don't know how the instructions apply to that.  (Listening to this in the background.)  However, IF it's a categorical denial, and IF it could have been completely excluded it seems that the defense would have greatly benefited from the jury not hearing about the question/answer at all.   Even if the statement can't be directly applied to a "consciousness of guilt" instruction (meaning the prosecution can't argue that in close), the statement is out there.  Again, the prosecution can bring it up as part of the timeline, without arguing explicitly that it's evidence of anything.  (Heck, MA caselaw on denials aside, if I was on defense and wanted it out, I'd have made an argument that SJ's question was hearsay.)
 
PS - also even if the Jenkins statement can't be mentioned at all in the close, the jury will remember.  If their reaction is anything like the SOSH crew's, it's crucial.  So, the prosecution can even say something in close like, "You heard all the evidence.  I saw you paying attention.  You may think that there's something out there which *really* removes any reasonable doubts you have.  Just because I don't emphasize it now, in this argument, does not mean you can't decide on that evidence in the jury room.  You weigh the evidence.  This is about the truth. This is about what happened.   This trial shouldn't be determined on makes the most clever argument to you."  Blah blah blah.  (A variant of this can be a defense closing piece as well, emphasizing doubts the defense didn't explicitly raise in close.)
 
​PPS - with AH's more or less unlimited budget on this, I'd have a jury analyst in the room watching the jury's response to everything.   I'd also have a few interns or an associate polling people as to arguments pieces of evidence and how they went over in the general viewing pop.  Or I'd pay a couple neutral parties to watch the trial.  Basically, I'd be willing to spend significant coin on anything that gave me an new angle on how third parties might view the evidence so I'd know what to emphasize, rehab, rebut, and/or push in close.  

 

[Joshv02]

The Jenkins statement - "Did you do it?"  AH: "No." was given a lot of weight by our SOSH crew.   I don't know how the instructions apply to that.  (Listening to this in the background.)  However, IF it's a categorical denial, and IF it could have been completely excluded it seems that the defense would have greatly benefited from the jury not hearing about the question/answer at all.   Even if the statement can't be directly applied to a "consciousness of guilt" instruction (meaning the prosecution can't argue that in close), the statement is out there.  Again, the prosecution can bring it up as part of the timeline, without arguing explicitly that it's evidence of anything.  (Heck, MA caselaw on denials aside, if I was on defense and wanted it out, I'd have made an argument that SJ's question was hearsay.)

Got it.  Yes, the prosecution clearly wants the question by SJ... but I bet they don't even mention the response by AH since they can't use it to point to any theory.

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
I was on a jury for a pretty simple 2.5 day criminal weapon possession case in New York.  We acquitted in 45 minutes, and barely even reviewed the instructions, because nobody believed the cops who testified.  I don't think jury instructions or closings could've changed things.

 
My dad was on a crim jury in CT.  When the victim was asked to ID the defedndant, he identified my dad (who was a juror, sitting in the jury box.)  My dad said, "my blood actually ran cold."  They acquitted - didn't even talk about the jury instructions.  Actually it was more of a nullification.  They thought the defendant was grossly overcharged for a minor mistake and that the case was stupid.  The "Plus, they didn't prove it," was just that - a "plus" reason.  
 
Anyone here convict (or come close to it?).  

 

[Joshv02]

Closings on Tuesday or Wednesday.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Garsh is allowing the closes to go up to 90 minutes.  (Sultan asked for 45min.)  
 
I'm a little surprised, given the length of the trial and the number of issues involved.  
 
Right now the plan is:
 
Monday - defense case.
 
Tuesday - charging and closes.  

 

[Granite Sox]

Perhaps some SOSH former jurors would share how their deliberation process worked in the jury room?  Did everyone take turns speaking?  Did you use the instructions and refer to them?  Did you give particular weight to something one of the attorneys said in terms of summing up the case? (The privacy of a jury's deliberations is important, but jurors can choose to share what they want.)

 
Jury member (in IN).  Assault with a deadly weapon.  Generally speaking, when it comes to high risk situations (in this case, defendant was looking at significant jail time), I'm a rule follower.  I took copious notes as a juror, and absolutely wrote down the instructions for use in deliberations.
 
It was a real 12 Angry Men-lite situation.  The individual chosen as jury foreman basically initiated discussion by saying "He's guilty, let's just get on with this and get out of here."  The majority of the jury was in agreement.  There was some hesitance from a couple of the other jurors until I basically said, "why don't we look at this up against the instructions and the evidence just to be sure."  At that point I led the jury through the instructions point by point and referenced the evidence presented from my notes that most of the jury had long since forgotten over the (only) two-day trial.  I'd say 3/4 of individual jurors asked clarifying questions and/or offered their thoughts along the way.
 
Guy was acquitted a few hours later.  At the end of the trial, the defendant's attorney and mother both grabbed me in the courthouse hallway and said, "We know you were the one that convinced the jury that my son/client was innocent.  You were the only one paying attention and taking notes."
 
FWIW

 

[Koufax]

Wow, that's an amazing accomplishment.  Here's hoping you don't read anything terrible about the defendant in the future.

 

[joe dokes]

 
Jury member (in IN).  Assault with a deadly weapon.  Generally speaking, when it comes to high risk situations (in this case, defendant was looking at significant jail time), I'm a rule follower.  I took copious notes as a juror, and absolutely wrote down the instructions for use in deliberations.
 
It was a real 12 Angry Men-lite situation.  The individual chosen as jury foreman basically initiated discussion by saying "He's guilty, let's just get on with this and get out of here."  The majority of the jury was in agreement.  There was some hesitance from a couple of the other jurors until I basically said, "why don't we look at this up against the instructions and the evidence just to be sure."  At that point I led the jury through the instructions point by point and referenced the evidence presented from my notes that most of the jury had long since forgotten over the (only) two-day trial.  I'd say 3/4 of individual jurors asked clarifying questions and/or offered their thoughts along the way.
 
Guy was acquitted a few hours later.  At the end of the trial, the defendant's attorney and mother both grabbed me in the courthouse hallway and said, "We know you were the one that convinced the jury that my son/client was innocent.  You were the only one paying attention and taking notes."
 
FWIW

 
Allowing jurors to take notes is a relatively recent development.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Wow, that's an amazing accomplishment.  Here's hoping you don't read anything terrible about the defendant in the future.

 
It's disappointing to read this sort of reaction - the implication is that DPL is somehow responsible (or at the very least should feel guilt for) the future actions of others.  In reality, DPL did his duty and upheld the law.  (I'd say the same thing if there was a conviction at the end of a fair deliberative process by a jury.)  
 
Juries aren't there to play god or to sign off on the future moral worthiness of persons.

 

[Granite Sox]

For the record, the asst. DA also chatted with me and said, "I knew I should have tossed you at the beginning.  It was down to you or [one other prospective juror]." And then he winked.  No hard feelings at all.
 
Can't vouch for the future of the young man (around 21YO as I recall), but he was ashen and scared to death the entire time.
 
P.S. Koufax, as to your comment... this is why I described it as a high-risk situation.  An individual was facing jail time, but also there's a natural concern about the ramifications of getting the verdict "wrong".  Speaking only for myself, the rule-following and note-taking was a personal risk mitigation strategy that (I believe) led to the proper outcome regardless of future behavior from the defendant.

 

[OCST]

Wow, that's an amazing accomplishment.  Here's hoping you don't read anything terrible about the defendant in the future.

 
Yeah, I hate this post.

 

[Just a bit outside]

I was on a jury in September.  7 different counts all related to domestic violence.  We found the defendant guilty on 3 counts and not guilty on the 4 others.  We took everything very seriously.  We went through each count individually and everyone had to say their opinion and support their argument from the testimony.  I don't know if it mattered but 3 of the jurors were educators and it ran very much like a classroom discussion.  We had separate charts of paper for each charge and went through very systematically. 
 
I think we all thought that the DA did a poor job and the guy was probably guilty on all counts.  We just didn't see enough evidence to go beyond reasonable doubt in the 4 counts we found not guilty.

 

[mauidano]

 
It's disappointing to read this sort of reaction - the implication is that DPL is somehow responsible (or at the very least should feel guilt for) the future actions of others.  In reality, DPL did his duty and upheld the law.  (I'd say the same thing if there was a conviction at the end of a fair deliberative process by a jury.)  
 
Juries aren't there to play god or to sign off on the future moral worthiness of persons.

I watch enough of these crime news shows (Dateline, 48 Hours etc.) too where they interview jurors on camera later.  It's reassuring that they take this seriously and follow directions.  They are emotionally involved and it shows.  You see defendants walk even when they think in the back of their mind "guilty" but that the State just didn't prove it according to the directions given.  You see how their own lives are changed by the experience. I can't imagine the horrific things you have to look at and hear in a murder trial, especially involving children.  It's not a perfect system but it's still the best in the world,  If I was on trial, I would want a juror like me who respects the system! For the record, got called for a case where a guy killed his mom with  a baseball bat because she wouldn't give him money for cigarettes.  Didn't get picked but followed the case in the news. Guilty as fuck.

 

[JimBoSox9]

 
It's disappointing to read this sort of reaction - the implication is that DPL is somehow responsible (or at the very least should feel guilt for) the future actions of others.  In reality, DPL did his duty and upheld the law.  (I'd say the same thing if there was a conviction at the end of a fair deliberative process by a jury.)  
 
Juries aren't there to play god or to sign off on the future moral worthiness of persons.

 
 

 
Yeah, I hate this post.

 
I'm not sure you need to climb all over it.  If you're on a jury and let a guy walk who ends up doing something horrible, there's going to be a perfectly natural guilt feeling and pretending there won't or shouldn't isn't the answer.  I totes agree that the reaction to that feeling needs to be I did the right thing anyways and not I shoulda jailed the bastard, but FWIW as a non-lawyer I didn't read the latter into the post.  I, too, hope DPU does not need to face that scenario in the future.

 

[mauf]

Nm

 

[Koufax]

I regret that post.  I did not mean to suggest guilt in any way.  Obviously DPU's behavior was exemplary and it is something that he should be very proud of.  The fact is, though, that sometimes young men who are innocent of a crime that they are accused of (or who have not been proven guilty) turn out to be bad guys who commit a crime later on.  That's not DPU's responsibility at all, but if I had done what DPU did and the defendant later committed a violent crime, I'd feel pretty weird about it.  I was simply trying to say in all sincerity that I hope it doesn't happen.  Given the vagaries of internet posts, however, I can understand how it was read as a shitty post and I wish I hadn't posted it. 

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

I regret that post.  I did not mean to suggest guilt in any way.  Obviously DPU's behavior was exemplary and it is something that he should be very proud of.  The fact is, though, that sometimes young men who are innocent of a crime that they are accused of (or who have not been proven guilty) turn out to be bad guys who commit a crime later on.  That's not DPU's responsibility at all, but if I had done what DPU did and the defendant later committed a violent crime, I'd feel pretty weird about it.  I was simply trying to say in all sincerity that I hope it doesn't happen.  Given the vagaries of internet posts, however, I can understand how it was read as a shitty post and I wish I hadn't posted it. 

Certainly not the first time a post conveyed a different meaning than what was intended and it won't be the last.  

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Perhaps some SOSH former jurors would share how their deliberation process worked in the jury room?  Did everyone take turns speaking?  Did you use the instructions and refer to them?  Did you give particular weight to something one of the attorneys said in terms of summing up the case? (The privacy of a jury's deliberations is important, but jurors can choose to share what they want.)

DV case where the standard was preponderance of the evidence. Defense attorney did a fantastic job obfuscating the difference between reasonable doubt and preponderance. Highlighted every weakness for the prosecution, called the victim's character into question, but did so without managing to offend the mostly female jury. The folks wanting to acquit ignored every effort to engage with the jury instructions. Hung jury. It was a positive experience to see how hard it can be to convict somebody, but depressing in this particular case because they obviously weren't going to retry and this dude was definitely guilty. About eight of the jurors were convinced the victim deserved it and ignored the actual questions at hand. I suspect for a more serious charge (not that domestic violence isn't serious), the jury would have been asked to deliberate for longer and people would have gotten more heated about the lack of interest in the instructions.

 

[djbayko]

I regret that post.  I did not mean to suggest guilt in any way.  Obviously DPU's behavior was exemplary and it is something that he should be very proud of.  The fact is, though, that sometimes young men who are innocent of a crime that they are accused of (or who have not been proven guilty) turn out to be bad guys who commit a crime later on.  That's not DPU's responsibility at all, but if I had done what DPU did and the defendant later committed a violent crime, I'd feel pretty weird about it.  I was simply trying to say in all sincerity that I hope it doesn't happen.  Given the vagaries of internet posts, however, I can understand how it was read as a shitty post and I wish I hadn't posted it. 

FWIW, I read it exactly as you explained it here and was taken aback by the negative comments.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

Perhaps some SOSH former jurors would share how their deliberation process worked in the jury room?  Did everyone take turns speaking?  Did you use the instructions and refer to them?  Did you give particular weight to something one of the attorneys said in terms of summing up the case? (The privacy of a jury's deliberations is important, but jurors can choose to share what they want.)

 
I was in a 6-person jury for an A&B case in MA, like 15 years ago.  The guy was pro-se.  The situation was that, when he showed up at his ex-wife's house to retrieve his 5yo son for his turn of shared custody, his wife was banging her new boyfriend in the back room.  She let him into the house but tried to block him from going in the back to get the kid while they argued about something (I think whether it was appropriate for her to be banging her boyfriend in their son's presence).  In response, he allegedly picked her up, moved her aside, and proceeded to the back room to pick up the kid and they left together.  She called the police, who took a grainy polaroid of her foot which she claimed was bleeding (but it was unclear).  Ergo, assault & battery.
 
The judge, who was a pretty whimsical sort (his trial-opening statement to us included a note that "here's the deal I'll make with you all.  Normally we make juries stand to receive certain instructions.  I'm willing to let you sit, but only if you promise me you'll pay attention.") gave us an instruction that included 3 specific elements to the A&B charge.  I remember part of it very well: that we had to believe the defendant had touched the victim "without right or excuse to do so".
 
Anyway, we proceeded to the jury room, went around one by one talking about our impressions, and then I and one other guy started talking about the charging instructions and thinking that that was a template we should use to decide what we all agreed on.  But we couldn't quite remember the exact instructions, and they hadn't given us a printed sheet or whatever, so we had to write a question down on paper (basically "wait, what were those elements again?"), send it out to the judge, who called us back in and just repeated what he said.  The 2nd time, after looking things over, we basically decided the charge was BS, he more or less had a "right or excuse" to move her out of the way.  There wasn't much violence alleged and the picture proved nothing.  Each of the 6 of us had to take a turn to talk, maybe to convince ourselves of this, but we all got there eventually.  So we acquitted him - by consensus, pretty much.
 
Personally, I felt like it was really over-charged, like they thought they could railroad the guy and he decided to represent himself and have his day in court.  Was ballsy, but he was very sincere and convincing, in a simple way, in his closing statement.  It basically amounted to, in a halting fashion, "guys, I'm here today because I feel I didn't do anything wrong, and I'm willing to put everything out there and trust you'll see it the same way.  You all heard what happened that day, nobody really disagrees about any of the facts.  We had an argument, I was focused on getting my kid out of an awkward, inappropriate situation, but I didn't hurt her or anyone and never have."  So I think a few of us were actively looking for a way we could construe the situation to not fit the description of the crimes alleged.
 
After everyone was dismissed, he somehow found the jury as we were all leaving via the back exit, stopped us and just thanked us effusively, shaking hands and stuff.  It felt nice but also weird, in a "this shouldn't be happening but oh well" sort of way.  What felt nicer was the feeling like this guy took a chance on the justice system, didn't think he needed a lawyer, and had that faith / gamble rewarded.

 

[kevmyster]

Perhaps some SOSH former jurors would share how their deliberation process worked in the jury room?  Did everyone take turns speaking?  Did you use the instructions and refer to them?  Did you give particular weight to something one of the attorneys said in terms of summing up the case? (The privacy of a jury's deliberations is important, but jurors can choose to share what they want.)

I sat on a murder trial in Manhattan for 5 weeks a few years back. It was one of the most fascinating things I've ever been a part of.
 
The prosecutor's open wove a thread about the Wire and that on a pirate ship, the only witnesses to crimes are pirates. High theatric value, but it was a good strategy, especially when the cast of characters started hitting the witness stand. My personal favorite was Crackhead Shorty. The case was 2 guys charged with 7 counts apiece. The most serious of the charges was murder 1, cascading down from there to attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and various weapons charges.
 
As far as the case goes, a high-level weed dealer (while locked up) arranged a hit on a big-time drug dealer. He hired his best friend and co-opted some street-level idiot cousins to take care of business. They failed (see: got high and didn't do it) on a few attempts, so the high-level weed dealer took matters into his own hands and oversaw the operation while on work release. He didn't pull the trigger (his best friend did), but he arranged the hit (on prison phones!), and in the process, the big-time drug dealer was murdered and his right-hand man got shot in the face. Those were the facts presented at the case, corroborated by tons of witness testimony and various types of evidence.
 
Our deliberation process was fascinating. There were 12 primary jurors and 4 alternates. We were made up of teachers, students, a military sergeant, a real estate dude, some retired folks, and a handful of people with retail-type jobs. Mostly thoughtful people whose regular lives weren't terribly disrupted by a prolonged summertime trial. 1 or 2 jurors were dismissed during the trial, but one of the most interesting details of the entire case (to me, anyway) came out after our first day of deliberations. I'll get to that in a minute.
 
After the case was presented and we started to deliberate, most of us were already pretty well convinced that these guys were guilty as sin, but we were absolutely going to do our due diligence to make sure that the evidence fit the letter of the crimes they were being charged with. We decided by consensus that we'd start with the least serious charges and move up from there. We went around the room and each of us had a chance to speak. We started with our general thoughts on the case before getting into the specific details of each charge. Nothing terribly conflicting came out of anything anyone had to say. Things got interesting when we got to the 12th girl. She took the tack of "are we really going to ruin these guys' lives by putting them away for a long time?" 11 heads collectively turned to her with "are you fucking serious?" expressions on our faces. To us, these dudes were pretty obviously calculating murderers, and we didn't think there was much merit to the possibility of them being innocent, even if they were going to have to be acquitted on some of the charges. So we spent the entirety of day one of deliberations trying to get this girl to hear reason about our task as a jury. She just wasn't hearing it.
 
Turns out she grew up in the building of one of the defendants! How the fuck does this happen?! But more importantly, how the fuck does she it happen and she still sits through the entire case?! Anyway, it did, she asked the judge to be dismissed, and we had to start deliberating back at the very beginning on day 2.
 
Things went more smoothly from there. We made our way up the list of the charges. Guilty on all the weapons stuff. My memory isn't completely clear on all of the intermediary charges, but I do remember that we had a few sticking points on the more serious charges. First, we couldn't agree that the high-level weed dealer was guilty of attempted murder on the big-time drug dealer's right hand man. That particular part of the crime wasn't premeditated—the right-hand man was in the wrong place at the wrong time, so we couldn't vote guilty on that charge.
 
Most of our time overall was debating the letter of the law on murder 1. Things got a little tense at certain parts of the day and there was a lot of back and forth. 9 or 10 of us were convinced that we had enough to convict, but it took some convincing for the holdouts. Again, my memory is a little fuzzy years later, but I believe there was a clause about "fiduciary gain" in the charge that eventually got the holdouts to come around. We found the high-level weed dealer guilty on 6 of 7 charges, and his best friend/hitman was found guilty on all 7.
 
As mentioned, the whole process was fascinating. My personal life circumstance at the time made it especially enjoyable for me. Don't get me wrong, I didn't enjoy sharing a courtroom with murderers or enduring countless frivolous objections from the greasy defense attorneys or looking at pictures of a murdered dude or sweltering in a Manhattan courtroom in the middle of the summer. But I did enjoy walking to and from the courtroom every day instead of going to work. I enjoyed going out to a different kind of lunch every day. I enjoyed that my HR department wouldn't give me a straight answer on whether I'd be paid for the leave, so I ended up getting paid for the jury service (albeit very little) on top of my regular paycheck from the company I worked for. And I used my free time to interview for a vastly superior job, which I started 2 weeks after returning from jury duty to the shitty job.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

I was on the Grand Jury of my county for 2 years, while I was a practicing Criminal Defense attorney. Made for some interesting situations. Those stories would take forever. 
 
But as far as a trial jury, I was on a small claims court civil trial while I was practicing and it was sort of fun. Car wreck where the plaintiffs were mother and daughter, black ladies. It was the mothers car and she had traveled a few hours to the trial but her daughter didn't appear. The defense attorney was from a firm a few hours away and someone I had dealt with years ago, he was insurance defense and did not remember me when he using his strikes. Plaintiffs attorney is in my fantasy football league. 
 
Anyhow, simple trial, no major injuries, soft tissue stuff. We get back to the jury room and I let the others speak first. A 70ish year old white farmer racist asshole speaks first and in no uncertain terms says he's not voting to give them anything. We go around the room and the rest of them are mixed. Some want to go with the defendant, some want to award something. Everyone is in agreement that the daughter deserves nothing for not showing up. I speak and basically explain it all to them. That attorney isn't representing the defendant, he's an insurance guy, the defendant isn't going to pay the damages, the insurance company will be paying. They've paid that attorney more than they'll ever have to pay the defendant in small claims court, etc. I say I don't care what we do with the daughter, we're giving the mom something. The racist doesn't like it at all and makes some stupid arguments. Everyone else is pretty much on my side at this point, we just can't convince the racist to do anything and we're undecided on how much. The court had a limit of damages (I think it was $5K) and I think that was in the jury instructions when the judge talked about the venue. I told the farmer that if he didn't want to vote for the plaintiff I had a solution. He was interested. 
 
We sent a question to the judge that said. "Are we allowed to award the plaintiff an amount in excess of the statutory limit?" 
 
About 10 minutes go by and the judge comes in and tells us no. I was shocked it didn't settle. Everyone dug in against the racist and he finally relented. So we award the mom the max and that was it.
 
I see both attorney's in the parking lot and the all three of us BS'd for a while. The defense attorney said he figured out who I was during the day and knew he was screwed, but the insurance company wouldn't settle at all on cases like that and he didn't even make a call when I sent out the question. He didn't give a crap either way, which was nice to see. Ian, my buddy, knew I was going to take care of it. So we had fun with that. Later on I used that leverage to get him to make a favorable trade a few years ago. Win win. 

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Isn't one of the questions for a juror always do you know anyone involved including the lawyers?

How did they ever allow you on the jury being friends with one of the teams?

 

[Comfortably Lomb]

Wow, that's an amazing accomplishment.  Here's hoping you don't read anything terrible about the defendant in the future.

 
I hate everything about this post.
 
Back when I was clerking for the juvenile court the first thing my judge handed me was this thing with a pair of co-defendants who were passengers in a stolen vehicle. He just wanted my take. "Fuck the police" was scrawled on the back of the driver's seat in front of one of the kids and a black magic market was found under the driver's seat. Car was pulled over because the cop recognized the driver and thought he couldn't possibly afford the car. They were charged with (IIRC, it's a few years now) receiving stolen property and the kid in the back with destruction of stolen property or something similar. Police report amounted to the officer saying he knew the kids, they were bad eggs, they had to know the car was stolen (but no mention of why they had to know it was stolen), and the kid in the back had to have written on the seat because the kid was there and the market was under the seat (you know, just sitting there). Maybe there was more to the story but we were going solely off the report and it was so thin. Wrote a nice little memo that touched on showing actual knowledge and being in the presence of a crime not being enough. Judge dismissed all charges. The next week the judge came into the law library and said "remember those kids from last week? This afternoon they're in front of my on an aggravated A&B against some girl." The moral? The police have to do their job correctly. Not that these kids could have been roasted a week earlier on insufficient facts.

 

[axx]

I'm starting to get the suspicion that the defense lawyers don't care and are only trying to maximize the billable hours. It's not like Hernandez is going to need any of the money anyway.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Isn't one of the questions for a juror always do you know anyone involved including the lawyers?

How did they ever allow you on the jury being friends with one of the teams?

It was magistrates court. They would ask if you were related to the plaintiff or defendant and if you had ever been represented by the attorneys. But I don't recall them asking if you "knew" the person. 
 
That same situation stung me on a speeding ticket case I had. I was a young attorney, out of my element, in a little podunk city court in the middle of nowhere. Had a guy with a 4 point ticket. He wouldn't take a 2 point reduction, claimed he wasn't speeding, so we try the case. We're picking the jury and I tell my guy, when they read the name, let me know if you know the person. So on one lady, he gets all excited and tells me he knows her, whispering it to me while the clerk is calling the name. I seated her on the jury. 
 
We get a short break right after the jury is seated, and we're out in the hall and he says "I think I'm in trouble". I'm like, what do you mean, we've got that one lady you know? He's like "yea, but her husband plays cards with Jerome." Jerome was the arresting highway patrol officer. Jury wasn't out long.

 

[EvilEmpire]

I hate everything about this post.

That's nice. Did you miss his follow up post with an explanation and an apology?

He didn't mean what you and others thought he did.

 

[OCST]

That's nice. Did you miss his follow up post with an explanation and an apology?

He didn't mean what you and others thought he did.

While giving him credit for a sincere apology, it's exactly what he meant, and yeah, I hate the post, and I don't apologize for saying so.

My law practice is >10% criminal work, and nothing involving violent crime. But I do a LOT of work with people with criminal records, trying to help them mitigate the effects of their records on their personal/professional lives.

I can tell you:

-people are wrongly charged/convicted - maybe not most of the time, but often enough to matter;

-the consequences for a conviction will screw up your personal and professional life forever;

-even if a guy is guilty, and is a scumbag, and has served his time, he's still a human being, with a family.

It's so easy to talk tough and demonize someone like the guy that DPU helped to acquit. FUCK THAT GUY HEs GILTY OF SOMETHING ELSE AMIRITE 11!!1!

It's something else when a 300 lb. guy, with a$2m business and 15 people on his payroll, starts crying in your office when, after ten years of evidently not caring, the authorities decide they're not going to renew his master plumbers' license because of his "poor moral character," ie a misdemeanor conviction when he was 19.

You don't have to look any further than Deflategate to see what happens when people are careless with accusations of guilt and their ramifications.

That the guy was once accused has zero to do with what he might do in the future, but a conviction could ruin this life, and DPU did the right thing in being careful. It's reckless to say otherwise.

 

[EvilEmpire]

While giving him credit for a sincere apology, it's exactly what he meant, and yeah, I hate the post, and I don't apologize for saying so.

I took his original post to mean exactly as he clarified later. Unless folks have the power to read minds, I don't know why anyone wouldn't extend the benefit of the doubt to another member of this community who follows up an inarticulate post with one clarifying what they mean.

Easier to be an asshole, I guess.

 

[smastroyin]

It is ironic at least that the innocent until proven guilty use objective measured looks at the evidence people are the ones who immediately jumped to rash judgement based on their own prejudice. Maybe it's just me that sees the irony though.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

It's something else when a 300 lb. guy, with a$2m business and 15 people on his payroll, starts crying in your office when, after ten years of evidently not caring, the authorities decide they're not going to renew his master plumbers' license because of his "poor moral character," ie a misdemeanor conviction when he was 19.

 
So, given that it's a slow weekend: did you fight this?  How did it end up for him?  Can't leave us hanging like that.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I regret that post.  I did not mean to suggest guilt in any way.  Obviously DPU's behavior was exemplary and it is something that he should be very proud of.  The fact is, though, that sometimes young men who are innocent of a crime that they are accused of (or who have not been proven guilty) turn out to be bad guys who commit a crime later on.  That's not DPU's responsibility at all, but if I had done what DPU did and the defendant later committed a violent crime, I'd feel pretty weird about it.  I was simply trying to say in all sincerity that I hope it doesn't happen.  Given the vagaries of internet posts, however, I can understand how it was read as a shitty post and I wish I hadn't posted it. 

 
Well, this has sort of been a mini-tempest in a teacup.  The bolded makes perfect sense to me.  I think it's a natural human reaction - I'd probably have it myself.  I think it arises from our sense of trying not to harm others.  But it's a very misplaced one.  What would the inverse be, taking some kind of credit or pride in the subsequent accomplishments of someone who we decided not to railroad, even though they looked kinda suspicious or something?  (How weird that sounds.)  
 
FWIW, I do see this sort of "hope he does not kill anyone later on" comment thrown about.  It does not usually arise from a concern for a misplaced sense of responsibility (leading to unwarranted guilt) that resides in a single juror.  From what I've seen it usually is meant to mean the standard for convictions (for certain types of people) ought to be lower, so we don't have to deal with subsequent crime.  (I'm not saying that you meant this sort of thing - just explaining my "disappointed" reaction, which was colored by my hearing very similar statements from others.)
 
***
Also, I'm curious as hell regarding OCST's client/story.  I wish I could say it's unusual, but I've run across similar things. 

 

[snowmanny]

After my experience on a jury I'd never take any verdict for granted.  This was in Cambridge.  Two defendants, a mechanic shop owner and his employee, were accused of badly assaulting a customer on the day he had beat them in small claims court.  I was not very happy to be on the jury for various reasons and was further put off by the prosecution's incompetence, including their inability to properly phrase basically any question. I was rolling my eyes and making faces and in retrospect was lucky to not get admonished.  Anyway, the main evidence against the defendants was a strong motive and a seemingly reliable eyewitness who ID'd the mechanic's car at the scene and also ID'd the two defendants.  
 
The only trouble was that the defense attorney for the employee produced a video which seemed to show his defendant at a Subway buying a sandwich at the time the assault was called into the police.  So there was an 11-1 vote to acquit the employee.  The holdout was a 22-ish year old woman who was quite sure that the police wouldn't arrest someone who wasn't guilty of something. She didn't want him "back out on the streets."  She was an insufferable idiot and wouldn't engage in any discussion beyond her stated position.
 
There was substantially more evidence against the mechanic shop owner -whose attorney was no great prize, either - and there was an 11-1 vote to convict.  The holdout was a 60-ish year-old woman who felt that the entire testimony of the eyewitness had to be thrown out because he seemed to have been wrong on the employee; this was an understandable argument (although, amazingly, not one the attorney for the shop owner had made) but for various reasons the rest of us thought that the ID of the mechanic was still worth something.
 
We were stuck for most of one day and all of the next day at the same vote, repeatedly telling the judge we were dead-locked and repeatedly being told to go back.  It was torture.  Finally at about 3 PM on Friday the holdout on the shop owner conviction said she would switch her vote not because she had changed her mind but just so we could all go home.  We re-voted and the vote was 11-0 to convict as I abstained as this seemed like a pretty stupid way to convict someone and I also didn't want the woman who had switched her vote feeling bullied or guilty.  Finally after that the judge let us leave.  Anyway, the prosecution had the option of dropping the case against the employee and presenting a more coherent case against the shop owner.
 
The whole experience was just horrible.
 
I seriously hope I'm never put on a jury again, and I sort of wonder if I'm on some secret list since it's been over 10 years and they've never called me.

 

[Jnai]

From Brian Fraga's twitter, sounds like the PCP expert witness - who is currently in voir dire - is not a particularly good witness or a PCP expert.

 

[Jnai]

Examples:
 

Brian Fraga @BfragaHN  ·  7m 7 minutes ago

Dr David Greenblatt says he has no done no clinical work on patients with PCP usage history

 

Brian Fraga @BfragaHN  ·  11m 11 minutes ago

Greenblatt acknowledged to Bomberg that he hasn't written article on PCP usage #AaronHernandez
 



Brian Fraga @BfragaHN  ·  2m 2 minutes ago

Video shows Wallace, Ortiz hanging around living room. Greenblatt says 'not enough info' to see if anyone is on PCP #AaronHernandez

 

[Joshv02]

It will be interesting to see how he goes, but I suspect that the prosecution won't be that aggressive in front of the jury.  Three witnesses - two DNA and the PCP guy.  Done by lunch?

 

[Shelterdog]

I'm just never going to understand the criminal justice system.  The "I'm with NFL" text doesn't come in but it looks like Dr. Nick is going to get to testify.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Thank you all for the juror stories.  I think they're amazing/fascinating; each on is unique.  (I've been voir dired several times but always struck from the jury.)  
 
***
 
I'm curious to see the defense case in chief today.  I suspect the defense is going after the "ortiz/wallace flipped out defense."  FWIW, IMO, PCP is sort of the boogeyman.  It can have no effect, or it can turn you into a face eating cannibal with super strength requiring multiple shotgun blasts to stop.  Depending on the expert.  We'll see what Greenblatt says.  

 

[NortheasternPJ]

It will be interesting to see how he goes, but I suspect that the prosecution won't be that aggressive in front of the jury.  Three witnesses - two DNA and the PCP guy.  Done by lunch?

 
They said they'll be done before lunch.

 

[Koufax]

 
What would the inverse be, taking some kind of credit or pride in the subsequent accomplishments of someone who we decided not to railroad, even though they looked kinda suspicious or something?  (How weird that sounds.)  
 

Well it sound weird but it isn't so crazy.  If you are the principal reason that the defendant doesn't go to the slammer and you read later that he has become a renowned surgeon, yes, I think you'd take pride in that.  Not in his accomplishment, but in your role in keeping him free to pursue his dream and help other people.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I'm just never going to understand the criminal justice system.  The "I'm with NFL" text doesn't come in but it looks like Dr. Nick is going to get to testify.

 
Criminal law isn't static.  It can change pretty radically over a couple of decades.  It also differs from state to state. 
 
Greenblatt can testify because there's evidence that Ortiz/Wallace smoked PCP before the killing.  Therefore, someone (an expert) can explain to the jury the possible implications of  PCP on a person; this explanation is an opinion and will only carry the weight the jury assigns to it.   Meaning the jury could credit or not credit the opinion of the effects of PCP as accurate or not accurate.  Beyond that the jury can decide whether it's relevant or not.  Meaning, whether O/W were on PCP, or whether it matters.  (In the sense of going to there being a reasonable doubt as to whether AH is guilty of any of the crimes he's charged with.)
 
The NFL text is something that didn't come in during this MA trial.  It may have come in under slightly different facts, or in another jurisdiction. At the end of the day though, I'm not sure that its exclusion matters all that much.  It could indicate OL was nervous.  Or not.   But it's pretty clear that OL was with AH right up to the point of the shooting.  
 
While there are some things I might have ruled differently on (assuming I was a judge and my understanding of MA law is correct), overall the trial does not strike me as "unfair" for either side.  It's in the "goldilocks zone."

 

[Jnai]

Guy is a Tufts Professor. FML.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Well it sound weird but it isn't so crazy.  If you are the principal reason that the defendant doesn't go to the slammer and you read later that he has become a renowned surgeon, yes, I think you'd take pride in that.  Not in his accomplishment, but in your role in keeping him free to pursue his dream and help other people.

Right - but what does it matter what happens afterward?  I think one should take pride in doing their job as a juror.  
 
What happens afterward isn't the result of the juror's actions.   I mean, what a jury found the guy guilty and the judge put him on probation and he later goes on to become a renowned surgeon?  Or if he would have become the guy who cured cancer, but he was shanked in jail awaiting sentencing?  Or he's found innocent, and later in his life some third party intervenes in the guy's life and he becomes a renowned surgeon?  Or he becomes a renowned surgeon, gets addicted to painkillers, and kills a patient on the table?   It's all way too attenuated.  We can't/shouldn't burden jurors with the responsibility for future actions.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

Guy is a Tufts Professor. FML.

 
So you're saying he's probably a PCP expert just based on his personal experiences alone?

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
So you're saying he's probably a PCP expert just based on his personal experiences alone?

"I walked through Davis Square every day."

 

[smastroyin]

Right - but what does it matter what happens afterward?  I think one should take pride in doing their job as a juror.  
 
What happens afterward isn't the result of the juror's actions.   I mean, what a jury found the guy guilty and the judge put him on probation and he later goes on to become a renowned surgeon?  Or if he would have become the guy who cured cancer, but he was shanked in jail awaiting sentencing?  Or he's found innocent, and later in his life some third party intervenes in the guy's life and he becomes a renowned surgeon?  Or he becomes a renowned surgeon, gets addicted to painkillers, and kills a patient on the table?   It's all way too attenuated.  We can't/shouldn't burden jurors with the responsibility for future actions.

 
I'm sorry to call this out. you know I think you are a valuable guy, but the whole thrust of this argument is law vs. humanity and they don't always jibe.  You can't just apply an objective measured standard to human emotion.  This is the disconnect.  Koufax's reaction and empathy was human.  You can not "get it" but that doesn't mean you can argue your way into forcing someone else to your point of view.  This is like the people talking about depression who think "it's just in your head, turn it off."  
 
We shouldn't burden jurors, but it is a human reaction to feel that burden.  Survivors of tragedy shouldn't feel guilt that they survived, do you want to go talk to those support groups and just tell them "you're not being logical, stop."  
 
Putting it this way, I still think there is a disconnect with Koufax's intent and the way the lawyers are reading it.  He's not saying "I hope you didn't make a mistake" he's saying "I hope nothing happens to make you wonder if you made a mistake."