Thanks for the kind words everyone. I don't know how useful I'll be over the next couple of weeks. All signs point to me being in trial myself, starting on the 2nd. If I'm in trial, that's all I focus on, first thought awake and last thought before sleep. So my apologies if I go dark for a bit. Shouldn't last more than 2 weeks, outside. (Or the case may resolve; but I don't make that call, the client does.)
There's a long long way to go on the AH/OL trial. I'm sure the high points of the testimony will be online at those websites linked above, but the more one misses of the trial (or relies on Facebook or whatnot) the more unreliable our view of the overall body evidence becomes. Sometimes there will be a true nail in the coffin type of witness or occurrence, but sometimes super-salient facts or testimony can slip by regular news coverage. Also, keep in mind we can't always see the jury's reaction to things. (When I'm in trial, I have my second chair (the attorney sitting at the table with the lead attorney) focus on the jury during cross. They write down what they hear, but they're really there to watch how things go over with the jury as a whole and with particular jurors if at all possible. It's unreliable, but it's a sort of instant feedback.)
If anyone wants to post what the daily testimony is in this thread, I think that could prove to be interesting and useful for everyone, especially when things are wrapping up. Just ID the witness in a post and just give a quick summary of what they said.
If you can catch the live testimony, some of the stuff might prove to be really interesting if you haven't been exposed to it thus far. For example, DNA testimony is pretty cool the first 4 times you hear it, and the defense crosses of just how unreliable it can be are equally as thought provoking. Even a meh witness in a real trial is 20x more interesting than the sometimes wildly-inaccurate CSI type show summaries of how investigations unfold. Much TV gets the law wrong, the procedure wrong, and often the basic investigative techniques and science wrong. Personally I think it's just cool to know how it all actually works.
***
On the fuzzy subject of "a murderer may walk," "one idiot juror," etc. There's a lot to say about that but it's a convo for another day.
Given those sentiments in the thread, I wanted to say that I forgot to point out a possible resolution to the trial - if the jury can't agree, it may "hang" or be unable to return a final decision on one or more of the counts. In that case, there's simply a new trial on any of the outstanding counts. So while the defense only has to "reach" one juror who refuses to convict, it only results in a redo. To get an acquittal (not guilty) the defense has to reach *all* the jurors. Or to say it another way, the State has to fail to convince every single jurors beyond a reasonable doubt. (This also illustrates the importance of void dire - can the either side pick a pro-state or pro-defense individual who won't succumb to group pressure?)
In less high profile cases, a hung jury is sometimes the equivalent of a win for the defense. Usually the state concedes there's a problem in the case and offers a much more reasonable plea bargain. So the defendant gets something they can live with (and knows at least some people thought he was guilty), and the state can note in their files or say in the press that there were some problems (some people thought he was not guilty) and this is the best they can do. It's kind of like enforced reasonableness on both sides.
Here, I doubt a plea would happen. Especially with the other pending cases. AH can't take a 40 year deal since the second case might add X number of years on top of that. (I'm making assumptions about MA sentencing law here.) AH could try to get a global plea on all cases after a mistrial, but again, I sort of doubt it.
So, unless there's a huge scandal uncovered, a hung jury (even the the "one idiot" scenario) will just result in a retrial. Usually retrial favors the state since they've seen the best case the defense can put forward and can address it the next time around. If witnesses are caught lying, a retrial can sometimes favor the defense, since the defense can now more easily point out those lies. Here, while I'm shooting in the dark, my first impression is that the state would have a huge advantage.