Aaron Hernandez Trial (Odin Lloyd)

Status
Not open for further replies.

mauidano

Mai Tais for everyone!
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2006
35,627
Maui
Kull said:
I wonder if Hernandez refused to let his lawyers incriminate his buddies directly? Not once has the defense come right out and tried to pin this on either of the other two, but instead have danced all around the subject. It will be interesting to see if the Defense Close tries to paint a picture of that option or instead uses a scattershot approach intended to raise enough doubts to hold a conviction at bay. Either Hernandez feels it's necessary to keep his friends from going state's witness at the next trial (double murder), or it's some sort of "gangster ethics". Either way, it removes the only realistic alternate explanation in this case.
It seems there was never any discussion of anybody "rolling over". The State obviously believing they have enough to slam the door on all three of these idiots.  Even the immunity of Shanaya Jenkins was not huge.  She did her best to be evasive without committing perjury.  AH may believe he's still "gangster" but that ain't gonna play in prison for the rest of his life. He's going down hard on this. Closings will be fascinating.
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
One of the two (I think Ortiz?) Offered to testify against AH but the state thought it was a bad idea so they didn't call him.

Other than put a murderer on the stand, what could the defense have done?(on the PCP expert, he sucked but I don't think they knew that defense was viable before hand as it was the commonwealth that elicited the PCP testimony).
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
Didn't Ortiz come out with two different versions of what happened? I thought that was their main problem with him.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
MentalDisabldLst said:
Not that it's actual malpractice - I was just suggesting that, to my untrained eye, it looks like advancing the "Wallace/Ortiz went nuts!" theory would be the better defense choice.
There's only so much a lawyer can ethically do to advance an argument that he knows is false.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
MentalDisabldLst said:
Not that it's actual malpractice - I was just suggesting that, to my untrained eye, it looks like advancing the "Wallace/Ortiz went nuts!" theory would be the better defense choice.
 
Ok, I just thought that when you said "Are we watching defense-counsel malpractice?" you were asking if there was actual malpractice.
 

Jnai

is not worried about sex with goats
SoSH Member
Sep 15, 2007
16,123
<null>
Someone who knows: if your co-defendant is convicted under joint venture laws, can that be used against you at trial? Like, if AH gets Murder 1 because the jury finds that OW pulled the trigger but he knew what was going to happen and he helped them plan / execute it, is that something that can be brought to bear in OW's trial?
 
M

MentalDisabldLst

Guest
Shelterdog said:
Ok, I just thought that when you said "Are we watching defense-counsel malpractice?" you were asking if there was actual malpractice.
 
Sorry, was using the term the way we might use "managerial malpractice" in baseball.  I don't believe the Gumps of the world carry Dumb Decision Insurance, but perhaps they should.
 
maufman said:
There's only so much a lawyer can ethically do to advance an argument that he knows is false.
 
I know nothing of this, so forgive a dumb question: where is that line drawn?  Is there usually a wink-wink kind of thing where the client insists he's innocent and actually X or Y happened, and even if defense counsel is pretty sure (via common sense) that it's bull, he can still go ahead trying to build a case around X or Y?  Can the defense only advance an argument that he or she honestly believes in?  All I know is that attorneys can't suborn perjury, but that simplistic rendering seems like it leaves plenty of gray area.  What's the more-refined version of that rule?
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
12,630
guam
MentalDisabldLst said:
 
Sorry, was using the term the way we might use "managerial malpractice" in baseball.  I don't believe the Gumps of the world carry Dumb Decision Insurance, but perhaps they should.
 
 
I know nothing of this, so forgive a dumb question: where is that line drawn?  Is there usually a wink-wink kind of thing where the client insists he's innocent and actually X or Y happened, and even if defense counsel is pretty sure (via common sense) that it's bull, he can still go ahead trying to build a case around X or Y?  Can the defense only advance an argument that he or she honestly believes in?  All I know is that attorneys can't suborn perjury, but that simplistic rendering seems like it leaves plenty of gray area.  What's the more-refined version of that rule?
Don't put on a defense or evidence that you know is false. Cue the epistemological debates.
 

knuck

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2010
148
Austin, TX
What is the standard over/under on the number of times 'reasonable doubt' is said during a 45 minute closing argument?
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
BroodsSexton said:
Don't put on a defense or evidence that you know is false. Cue the epistemological debates.
Exactly.

Because Fee handled the investigation, AH likely told him exactly what happened (or at any rate, he should have). In closing arguments, he can say "the evidence is consistent with [insert explanation that justifies a not-guilty verdict]," but he's limited in how much he can develop that alternate history when he knows with certainty that that's not what happened.

If I had unlimited resources and was accused of committing a serious crime, I would probably hire a different attorney to handle the trial than the guy who represented me in the course of the government's investigation.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
maufman said:
Exactly.

Because Fee handled the investigation, AH likely told him exactly what happened (or at any rate, he should have). In closing arguments, he can say "the evidence is consistent with [insert explanation that justifies a not-guilty verdict]," but he's limited in how much he can develop that alternate history when he knows with certainty that that's not what happened.

If I had unlimited resources and was accused of committing a serious crime, I would probably hire a different attorney to handle the trial than the guy who represented me in the course of the government's investigation.
 
I think you're right that AH disclosed everything, but I don't necessarily agree that he should have.
 
Edward Bennett Williams was widely considered to be the best trial lawyer of his day.  And while he would generally understand the truth about his clients, he had a rule to never engage the client directly on the question of guilt or innocence because it would limit his ability to put on a defense.
 
Like you, I suspect that the reason we aren't seeing an affirmative defense in this case is that AH has disclosed his guilt to the lawyers.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
12,630
guam
Average Reds said:
 
I think you're right that AH disclosed everything, but I don't necessarily agree that he should have.
 
Edward Bennett Williams was widely considered to be the best trial lawyer of his day.  And while he would generally understand the truth about his clients, he had a rule to never engage the client directly on the question of guilt or innocence because it would limit his ability to put on a defense.
 
Like you, I suspect that the reason we aren't seeing an affirmative defense in this case is that AH has disclosed his guilt to the lawyers.
 
As an aside, if you haven't read "The Man to See," the biography of Williams, it's brilliant.  My favorite anecdote, as I recall it, is that as a young lawyer, he was cutting his teeth in defending actions against Georgetown Medical Center (I think that was it--some institutional defendant).  His client was sued by a bike rider who was injured when he was hit by a delivery vehicle.  He persuaded the client to counterclaim for negligence, refused to settle, and won at trial.
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
AH closing so far: Bias, manipulation, incompleteness... see the picture of the gum and the shell casing.
 
Would be strong if that were all the evidence - feels easy to knock out.  Heck, its still AH's car and its pretty clear that no matter the gum and the shell casing (and the video) indicate that AH was there. And that is most of what the DNA tells us.  
 
But, still early.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,692
Miami (oh, Miami!)
maufman said:
Exactly.

Because Fee handled the investigation, AH likely told him exactly what happened (or at any rate, he should have). In closing arguments, he can say "the evidence is consistent with [insert explanation that justifies a not-guilty verdict]," but he's limited in how much he can develop that alternate history when he knows with certainty that that's not what happened.

If I had unlimited resources and was accused of committing a serious crime, I would probably hire a different attorney to handle the trial than the guy who represented me in the course of the government's investigation.
 
Actually, there's significant latitude in developing alternate scenarios.  You can argue anything the evidence supports.  The formulation is often something like, "You've heard the evidence, but you know what else the evidence could show?  X, Y, Z."  There's sort of a fuzzy line - I don't believe you can argue something patently false.  Say that AH was the President of the US if only one witness, called by the state, testified to that.  On the other end of the spectrum, the attorney's private suspicions about something can't be the basis for the attorney "turning" on the client or refusing to defend vigorously (since that would ask the defense attorney to "judge" each of their clients, usurping the position of the jury.)
 
What you can't do is put a false piece of testimony/evidence in front of the jury.  This issue comes to a head most often when the client confesses to his attorney that he's guilty and wants to lie on the stand.  The attorney then has a conflicting duty of candor to the court and being a zealous advocate for his client.  Different ways of dealing with this have been tried over the years, such as allowing the defendant to testify in a narrative without the attorney directly questioning him.  The current thinking is that the attorney must withdraw from representing the client.  It's not an entirely satisfactory solution. 
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,692
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Sultan is closing for the defense.  The state follows.  
 
You can rewind the live feed to start at the beginning of the closing arguments.  (I'm about 50 minutes behind.)  
 

Norm loves Vera

Joe wants Trump to burn
SoSH Member
Dec 25, 2003
5,370
Peace Dale, RI
Wild About Trial @WildAboutTrial

Sultan: Police "snookered" the DNA analyst when they sent her the shell casing alone, w/o bubble gum attached
 
Sultan is painting a witch hunt.. in a reasonable manner.  it will be interesting to see how the prosecutor responds.  Not enough by sultan to change my mind if I was leaning towards convicting, but it does make me question the process the Police and the DA undertook in the collection of evidence.
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
Rovin Romine said:
You can rewind the live feed to start at the beginning of the closing arguments. 
At the very least, everyone should rewind to right now when Sultan is reading out AH's texts.  Hearing him say "my nigga" is worth the price of admission.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
BroodsSexton said:
 
As an aside, if you haven't read "The Man to See," the biography of Williams, it's brilliant.  My favorite anecdote, as I recall it, is that as a young lawyer, he was cutting his teeth in defending actions against Georgetown Medical Center (I think that was it--some institutional defendant).  His client was sued by a bike rider who was injured when he was hit by a delivery vehicle.  He persuaded the client to counterclaim for negligence, refused to settle, and won at trial.
 
Check your PMs.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
I've got to think  the defense got a very good ruling on what kind of motive and character evidence could be introduced (particularly vis a vis the other alleged crimes) because they were quite aggressive on the lack of motive, on how Hernandez and Lloyd were friends, and on questioning why Hernandez would commit a crime when he's a dad/young star athlete.  Or they are big time risk takers with giant brass ones.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,692
Miami (oh, Miami!)
I'd give Sultan's close a 7 or 8 - probably the best piece from the defense so far.  
 
Overall he emphasized lack of motive and bias in how the evidence was presented.  It was sort of a smokescreen defense in the sense that he focused the majority of the case on things that didn't really go to the core of the prosecution's case.   He did spend a bit of time on the lack of evidence and the instructions, but that should probably have had more weight.  Also, no strong looping, etc.  No strong development of alternative theories.  His use of "confirmation bias" (which was looped) was outstanding though.  
 
This is sort of the CYA close Paulin and I were discussing.  It dutifully trots out problems with the state's case.  It his the major points (burden, BRD, presumption of innocence, etc.).  It floats a few soft speculations as to what else might have happened, without getting into details.
 
For all the really nice (and it was nice) point by point illustrations of the problems with particular problems in the prosecution, what Sultan didn't deliver was a consistent alternative narrative or two.  I suspect he could have.  I'd have done that myself.  The danger is that the prosecution will present an argument that in isolation any flawed piece of evidence is bolstered by 4 other pieces of evidence.  Also, the defense theories (such as they are) are unreliable.  For example, the story about PCP use comes from AH's cousin/aunt, who wasn't reliable at all. 
 
If that couldn't happen the defense probably should have emphasized the "completely unknown" aspects of the case more fervently.  This was a sort of "chip away" defense, gilded with "we just don't know."  I'd say he could have done better with making these arguments more concrete and based in the instructions.  (If your argument is that the state really failed to show an element, that has to be front and center.  Here, the "lack of motive" and "problems with investigation" was front and center.) 
 
All that said, this close could have been very effective - we can't see the jury or their reactions.   Perhaps it was exquisitely well tailored.  Or maybe it fell flat.  It's hard to tell in isolation.  You can't effectively measure a close outside of the jury it's given to.
 

gtmtnbiker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,725
The defense mentions that it it looks like AH might have an ipad before we went into the basement.  Does that seem possible to you?  I've only seen the picture where it is obvious that he's holding a gun.
 
The defense says that AH didn't damage the surveillance system.  I thought that he did try to do so but wasn't successful?  And he also tried to destroy his phone?  
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
Rovin Romine said:
I'd give Sultan's close a 7 or 8 - probably the best piece from the defense so far.  
 
Overall he emphasized lack of motive and bias in how the evidence was presented.  It was sort of a smokescreen defense in the sense that he focused the majority of the case on things that didn't really go to the core of the prosecution's case.   He did spend a bit of time on the lack of evidence and the instructions, but that should probably have had more weight.  Also, no strong looping, etc.  No strong development of alternative theories.  His use of "confirmation bias" (which was looped) was outstanding though.  
 
This is sort of the CYA close Paulin and I were discussing.  It dutifully trots out problems with the state's case.  It his the major points (burden, BRD, presumption of innocence, etc.).  It floats a few soft speculations as to what else might have happened, without getting into details.
 
For all the really nice (and it was nice) point by point illustrations of the problems with particular problems in the prosecution, what Sultan didn't deliver was a consistent alternative narrative or two.  I suspect he could have.  I'd have done that myself.  The danger is that the prosecution will present an argument that in isolation any flawed piece of evidence is bolstered by 4 other pieces of evidence.  Also, the defense theories (such as they are) are unreliable.  For example, the story about PCP use comes from AH's cousin/aunt, who wasn't reliable at all. 
 
If that couldn't happen the defense probably should have emphasized the "completely unknown" aspects of the case more fervently.  This was a sort of "chip away" defense, gilded with "we just don't know."  I'd say he could have done better with making these arguments more concrete and based in the instructions.  (If your argument is that the state really failed to show an element, that has to be front and center.  Here, the "lack of motive" and "problems with investigation" was front and center.) 
 
All that said, this close could have been very effective - we can't see the jury or their reactions.   Perhaps it was exquisitely well tailored.  Or maybe it fell flat.  It's hard to tell in isolation.  You can't effectively measure a close outside of the jury it's given to.
I watched part of the beginning, but I'm getting cross fire this morning with work distractions. I'll catch it later if the feed allows me to rewind to the beginning. 
 
I liked the "meat" of the close, but I thought he could have been a bit more animated in regards to certain points. For instance, I would (and always did) emphasize the innocent until proven guilty portion very emphatically. I would have said something dramatic like "Aaron is an innocent man. He was innocent the day before Odin was murdered, he was innocent the day after, he was innocent the day this trial started, he is innocent today, and he was innocent all the days in between. He is innocent because the law says he is until the state meets their burden of proof, something they simply have not done." Then I would have gone into my legal explanation of presumption of innocence, burden of proof, standard of prood, etc. The defense was very low key explaining those points, which may be part of a larger strategy and possibly he's more animated later, but at some point I think you need some energy. But I didn't see it all.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,692
Miami (oh, Miami!)
McCauley closes for the state. 
 
Faster pace.  More animated.  Uses hands a lot.  Paces, no notes, one hand in pocket sometimes.  Launches right into the facts of the case.  Emphasizes corroboration and interlocking evidence (see my concern above in the defense's close).
 
Judge interrupts the close to say the prosecution can't use the phrase "we know."  You never want that to happen. 
 
Begins by getting into AH's character/attitude from the get go and club rumor.   (I'd have lead with the dead body.)   Really nice segue into how the rumor activities show AH having a gun, being entitled, sort of stalking OL, etc.  "What causes somebody to go arm themselves?" (Again though, could have set this up by telling the jury (in close) "I'm going to show you something that goes to AH's actions and motive." Then explain.)
 
More updates as we go.  
 
Seems like this is going to be chronological and focused on the actual killing.  (Which'd be best.)
 
***
 
Overall, I prefer contextualization, looping, setting up the pieces, giving the jury orientation and structure.  (One of the benefits of structure is that inside the close itself you deliver what you promise to).  I'm not sure either side did (is doing) this sort of thing as well as they could have.   It's sort of a hobby horse with me.  Usual caveats about everyone having their own style, etc. apply.  
 

jcd0805

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
3,962
Florida
He has my complete attention, but I've not been able to pay much attention unfortunately so maybe the jurors are bored by this since it's all stuff they've already heard? 
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,483
The 718
Rico Guapo said:
From a legal standpoint, I'm a complete layman, but...isn't it pretty risky for the defense to identify AH as a witness to the crime? i.e. confirming he was there when OL was killed...
 
That ship has sailed, hasn't it?
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,692
Miami (oh, Miami!)
PaulinMyrBch said:
I watched part of the beginning, but I'm getting cross fire this morning with work distractions. I'll catch it later if the feed allows me to rewind to the beginning. 
 
I liked the "meat" of the close, but I thought he could have been a bit more animated in regards to certain points. For instance, I would (and always did) emphasize the innocent until proven guilty portion very emphatically. I would have said something dramatic like "Aaron is an innocent man. He was innocent the day before Odin was murdered, he was innocent the day after, he was innocent the day this trial started, he is innocent today, and he was innocent all the days in between. He is innocent because the law says he is until the state meets their burden of proof, something they simply have not done." Then I would have gone into my legal explanation of presumption of innocence, burden of proof, standard of prood, etc. The defense was very low key explaining those points, which may be part of a larger strategy and possibly he's more animated later, but at some point I think you need some energy. But I didn't see it all.
 
I agree with all of this, especially the bolded.  
 
 
gtmtnbiker said:
The defense mentions that it it looks like AH might have an ipad before we went into the basement.  Does that seem possible to you?  I've only seen the picture where it is obvious that he's holding a gun.
 
The defense says that AH didn't damage the surveillance system.  I thought that he did try to do so but wasn't successful?  And he also tried to destroy his phone?  
It was used to show how uncertain the home security system resolution can be.  
 
Also, I remember reading something about AH damaging the system, but I don't think it came out in trial.  
 
Rico Guapo said:
From a legal standpoint, I'm a complete layman, but...isn't it pretty risky for the defense to identify AH as a witness to the crime? i.e. confirming he was there when OL was killed...
They set it up as a possibility.  But I believe they should have emphasized the jury instructions more clearly - i.e., saying even if he was there, just being there wasn't a crime.  
 
(For example, if one of the elements (set forth in the jury instructions) required a pink elephant to dance on the defendant's head when he was doing X, and there's no evidence there was a pink elephant, then the jury must acquit.  So you hammer the pink elephant over and over and over and over.)  
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,692
Miami (oh, Miami!)
McCauley is sort of all over the map.  He's making some really good points.  But it's kind of haphazard/freeform.   Loosely chronological.  
 
Just finished a piece about AH texting to get W/O up to MA in a hurry.  Suggest the club activity was an effort to establish an alibi.  Getting W/O up to MA, 20 min prep before getting OL, etc. shows premeditation.   
 
Nice point about using the c-card to get gas (they didn't have enough cash to pay for gum at the gas station.)  
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Rovin Romine said:
 
Also, I remember reading something about AH damaging the system, but I don't think it came out in trial.  
 
 
Lots and lots of stuff on "alleged destroying" when they were executing warrants.  I don't know if they successfully got what they needed in search before he could destroy or if he wasn't able to actually destroy what he needed to destroy.
 
An example, there are more.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,692
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Nice point about OL heading to the passenger seat when getting picked up.  Video shows this - then OL gets in the back.  Implication is that OL didn't expect others to be in the car.  (Actually that's really well done.)
 
I mention this because McCauley isn't wasting time arguing that the car that picked up OL was AH's.  He just assumes it and focuses on the details.  Sometimes it's really hard to resist arguing the obvious things you know you can win on.  
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,692
Miami (oh, Miami!)
What was the purpose of going to Corliss Landing at that time at that hour?  AH was driving.  2 minutes from home.  Then a murder occurs.  Nature of the murder - 4 people in the car.  Fingerprint evidence.  Shot was fired in the car.  Shell casing under the front seat.  OL was shot getting out of the car.   Ortiz couldn't' have fired shot (clothing negative for GSR/stippling).  AH out of the car at this point (foot print).  AH goes to the rear of the car (foot print points).  Trail of shell casings begin from that point.  Point blank shooting as OL is dodging/moving/twisting.  
 
Defendant goes back to house.  Perfect spot to kill someone.  No eyewitnesses.  
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,692
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Now some elements.  Joint venture.  
 
Who is the leader of the group?  AH looking for shell casing in car when they arrive.  AH leads them to basement.  AH has gun at various point.  AH disables surveillance at 3:30 am?  Video next AM shows normal interaction between AH and O/W.  AH has 8 month old infant and hands her to Wallace.  Is this consistent with Wallace randomly flipping out?  The next day they eat and hang at the pool while OL's body is decomposing.  AH leaves his kid with Ortiz in the pool and gets a handgun clip out of his car.   AH examines car for damage.  
 
Hanging out video shows nature of joint venture to be intact.  No one is freaking out.  SJ serves them smoothies.  
 
In furtherance of the joint venture, they return the car.  (Interesting argument.)   
 

Kull

wannabe merloni
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
1,689
El Paso, TX
Rovin Romine said:
What was the purpose of going to Corliss Landing at that time at that hour?  AH was driving.  2 minutes from home.  Then a murder occurs.  Nature of the murder - 4 people in the car.  Fingerprint evidence.  Shot was fired in the car.  Shell casing under the front seat.  OL was shot getting out of the car.   Ortiz couldn't' have fired shot (clothing negative for GSR/stippling).  AH out of the car at this point (foot print).  AH goes to the rear of the car (foot print points).  Trail of shell casings begin from that point.  Point blank shooting as OL is dodging/moving/twisting.  
 
Defendant goes back to house.  Perfect spot to kill someone.  No eyewitnesses.  
 
Wow. That HAS to stick with the jury. You get chills just reading it.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,692
Miami (oh, Miami!)
jcd0805 said:
He has my complete attention, but I've not been able to pay much attention unfortunately so maybe the jurors are bored by this since it's all stuff they've already heard? 
 
The closing arguments recap the facts but *argue* what the inference of those facts are.  Some of what (to me) seemed extraneous evidence is being contextualized - used to prove a point, or argue an inference.  For example, I couldn't figure out why the state elicited testimony that AH paid for the gum at the gas station with change (and not enough of it.)  It argues against the defense's idea that AH wasn't planning on killing OL as shown by his lack of care in covering his tracks (i.e., using his credit card to pay for gas at the same station.) 
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,692
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Kull said:
Wow. That HAS to stick with the jury. You get chills just reading it.
 
There are some problems with it.  McCauley is assuming fingerprints were made at certain times to support his narrative.  The prints could have been made earlier that day.  It's a theory that isn't inconsistent with the facts, but it assumes things.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,692
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Joint venture support: lies about the car damage, gets them a new rental car.  
 
Intent: actions, picking up OL, driving OL to the scene, no reason to be at Corliss Landing at 3:45 AM, no outrage when AH arrives home, fist pumps hugs the next day (while his "friend" OL is lying dead in a field).  
 

Kull

wannabe merloni
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
1,689
El Paso, TX
Rovin Romine said:
 
There are some problems with it.  McCauley is assuming fingerprints were made at certain times to support his narrative.  The prints could have been made earlier that day.  It's a theory that isn't inconsistent with the facts, but it assumes things.
 
It's the link between the footprints and the "line of shell casings". I can certainly see why the Defense would want to establish doubt about the quality of the crime scene police work, because that alone sounds very damaging.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,692
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Kull said:
It's the link between the footprints and the "line of shell casings". I can certainly see why the Defense would want to establish doubt about the quality of the crime scene police work, because that alone sounds very damaging.
 
Yeah but the fingerprints don't mean that Wallace opened the door for OL just before he was shot.  McCauley is doing a really good job with the closing thus far.  He's got to be careful not to present an assumption as a fact.  Juries don't like that. 
 

PeaceSignMoose

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2006
1,745
Boston
Rovin Romine said:
Argues that the box text was an attempt to destroy the DVD recorder that SJ didn't pick up on.  (Weird?)
 
Very strange.  They'd made references to texts being in code all trial, but was any evidence even presented that would corroborate that allegation?
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
JimBoSox9 said:
Where do you guys think the state's case would have been if there were no security cameras in the Hernandez home?
 
Less iron-clad, but still very, very strong.
 
The physical evidence from the murder site, the rental car, the DNA on the shell casing from the rental car, the texts establishing that OL was with AH - all of that is enough to establish guilt.  The video is just icing on the cake.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,692
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Motive piece.  They're not friends.  Just guys dating sisters.  Read tone/tenor of AH's texts to OL.  
 
Basically McCauley just does what I alluded to earlier - the intent in planning the crime shows the motive, we don't know what it is (good motive, bad motive, whatever.) 
 
Relatively quick close to the close.   Which hi lights the lack of structure (there were no "basic 5 points" to recap.)
 
***
Overall, a very good to excellent close.  Probably an 8/9 of 10.  It was emotive, didn't get distracted by the defenses arguments, assumed the proper facts (didn't belabor proof of basic things) and showed the implications of much of the evidence that was solicited.  I didn't hear anything that was immediately objectionable (and the defense didn't object), so I think McCauley stayed on the correct side of the line in terms of arguments.  
 
Bit surprised he didn't go over the jury instruction with them. 
 
Again, who knows how the jury reacted to it?  So this could be "better" or "worse" than my rating, for whatever quirky reasons exist in the dynamic between the jury and the prosecution.  
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,692
Miami (oh, Miami!)
JimBoSox9 said:
Where do you guys think the state's case would have been if there were no security cameras in the Hernandez home?
 
I'm going to say "much weaker."  The prosecution relied heavily on the video to show AH's demeanor before and after the shooting, which is central to their argument about joint venture.   Also, the vid shows AH with gun in hand and AH's exact arrival time at the house.  
 
Without the vid, AH theoretically has a "they dropped me off earlier that night" defense.   Sure his DNA and prints are in the car - he left them there earlier.  (The joint at the murder scene is harder to explain but doable.) 
 
The state could still prosecute though.  
 
Status
Not open for further replies.