Seems like easy questions so far. Which is letting her get acclimated. I'd have pushed on a juicer issue first.
Aaron Hernandez Trial (Odin Lloyd)
- Thread starter Rovin Romine
- Start date
- Status
I think he's doing a good job of getting her to show she can remember plenty of inane details, which would make it seem unreasonable that she not remember other things. Could that be where this is going?
He is going a little off script though - all the back issues about the car. She's looking very nervous. So perhaps this is a good strategy.
Good thing Hernandez murdered a few people because with the communication skills these two had with each other, their marriage never would have lasted.
Maybe Hernandez just wanted an economical mid sized family sedan?
Maybe Hernandez just wanted an economical mid sized family sedan?
Holy hell with the blinking on the "no" answers. I'm not trying to say it's dispositive, but damn.
Well one reason I'm skeptical of a guilty verdict is that I am a typical juror. Relatively young-middle aged college educated regular person rather than many in this thread with law degrees who have much experience in these settings. The juror who knows who Aaron Hernandez is, knows his celebrity, and may be overly cautious in assuming what occurred to the point of leaving too far to the other side in the attempt to make a fair decision.Rovin Romine said:
A major problem i have foreseen is the jury and how they interpret the barrels of circumstantial evidence and how the prosecutor delivers it to make the casual juror certain that he has a tight case. As much as the phrase is thrown around there is no "impartial juror" in a case like this and it could hurt the prosecution because you don't know how far their opinion sways in how much evidence they need to be presented. There is a ton of volatility in a jury for a case such as this in my opinion. I'm not saying my opinion is correct by any means.
JimBoSox9 said:
The lashes and the makeup really accentuate the nervous blinking. Bad call on someone's part. The little details matter.
I just have this on in the bgd but I'm having a hard time thinking she looks particularly nervous or is giving moronic answers. I mean, she's testifying at her fiancé's murder trial. Is it that hard to believe she may take a few seconds to remember things like when she moved into her house?
HomeRunBaker said:
That doesn't make you a typical juror.
You would be a typical juror if you were a soda delivery truck driver with a high school education, or a waitress.
Not trying to denigrate working folks - just the reality. I sat on one jury, and among the six jurors and two alternates, there was only one person besides me who had even a college education, and she was a dance major who was working as an office temp.
HomeRunBaker said:
Well, technically, we want "impartial" jurors - that is jurors who will believe the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The jury's going to weigh the evidence on their own, and the instructions are pretty clear as to how they're supposed to apply the law. Those instructions are also subjective, as they must be.
There's going to be a discussion amongst the jury after the evidence is in - the jury literally goes to "deliberate." So they'll talk about how strong the case is and if there are other scenarios out there. Right now, from the point of an external casual observer, things are strongly in favor of the prosecution. But who really knows what the jury is thinking, or what arguments, pro and con, will float around that jury room?
If this was Law and Order, this is where she breaks and screams ITS THE GUN, WE ALL KNOW ITS A GUN! HE KILLED HIM! I'M SORRY AARON! I'M SORRY!
This is the clearest picture I have seen of AH with the gun which Jenkins claimed looked like a black blob in the picture. must be a pretty big junk drawer.
"Are you close as sisters with Shaneah?"
"Not anymore! My fiance fucking killed her boyfriend! Oops!
"Not anymore! My fiance fucking killed her boyfriend! Oops!
I didn't realize this as the only time I was called the case never went to trial. Damn, that makes it worse and even MORE volatile. God our system sucks.OilCanShotTupac said:
Why does AH have a flashlight in broad daylight? Never can be too sure?norm from cheers said:This is the clearest picture I have seen of AH with the gun which Jenkins claimed looked like a black blob in the picture. must be a pretty big junk drawer.
Van Everyman said:
I can certainly see a juror or an observer attributing her reactions to just nerves. For me the key is that she's quick on some answers, like she's expecting them. When the prosecutor moves off script, she has to think and pause and work out what she should say. That kind of orients the nervousness for me.
Plus, if her man is innocent, she can just come out with all the basic innocent facts, right? I'm pretty sure someone on the jury is thinking that.
She's kind of a proxy for AH. She does not seem fired up about his innocence though.
For example, just now the state asked about the relationship between OL and AH - and she did not say they were friends. She said that they "may have hung out on some occasions." She has to be directly prompted into saying they were "friends." Then she won't commit to whether or not she said that OL and AH were "cordial." She has to be shown her previous testimony. She admits "they weren't the best of friends."
So the demeanor is, from my point of view, pretty bad.
Also, she basically admitted to a gun consistent with the glock being kept in the kitchen.
***
SOSHers - PLEASE SHARE YOUR IMPRESSION OF HER ON THE STAND! I've got a kind of quirky angle on witnesses. I'd love to hear what you all think.
I haven't seen the whole thing, but so far, she hurts her credibility with some of her answers, especially with the gun (so far), but I don't think it helps or hurts the prosecution's case much at all.
I'd say she definitely seems nervous. Is this because her fiance is on trial or because she's trying to cover up a murder? Can't say.
She does seem to have a very good memory of most details, but her memory gets cloudier (or she takes a while to answer) when it could be against Aaron. Again does that mean she is just being careful to not mistakenly screw over her innocent fiance or because she's trying to hide the facts. Also can't say.
She does seem to have a very good memory of most details, but her memory gets cloudier (or she takes a while to answer) when it could be against Aaron. Again does that mean she is just being careful to not mistakenly screw over her innocent fiance or because she's trying to hide the facts. Also can't say.
Rovin Romine said:
Why did the judge sustain the objections about her describing the 'black blob'?
See, this is why you shouldn't trust pundits (or me). I (defense attorney) am firmly in the "sketchy" box.
But we have two "potential juror" votes for "maybe sketchy, maybe not."
Any ladies out there who want to weigh in? Lots of women on the jury, and SJ is pretty. I'm not the best with women-on-women dynamics/judging. (One reason why I often go with a female trial partner.)
But we have two "potential juror" votes for "maybe sketchy, maybe not."
Any ladies out there who want to weigh in? Lots of women on the jury, and SJ is pretty. I'm not the best with women-on-women dynamics/judging. (One reason why I often go with a female trial partner.)
However, I do agree with whoever said upthread that it is incredibly shady that when she found out Odin was murdered she asked Aaron "Did you do it?" and after he replied no they had no further conversations.
I have about 1/100,000th of a connection to Aaron and Odin as Shayanna and all I did that day was discuss this matter with friends/SoSH. She would have most certainly asked every detail about what happened that night. He may have told her to not ask any questions but she hasn't admitted to that either.
I have about 1/100,000th of a connection to Aaron and Odin as Shayanna and all I did that day was discuss this matter with friends/SoSH. She would have most certainly asked every detail about what happened that night. He may have told her to not ask any questions but she hasn't admitted to that either.
Never having heard a woman testify in her fiancee's murder trial, I think she sounds pretty reasonable, to be honest. Where were you last Tuesday? What did you have for dinner that night? Which kind of plate did you use? Did you watch TV last night? What did you watch?
A lot of these questions seem like those sorts of questions, except from 1-2 years ago, and those sorts of questions take time to answer (if you can answer them at all).
A lot of these questions seem like those sorts of questions, except from 1-2 years ago, and those sorts of questions take time to answer (if you can answer them at all).
soxhop411 said:
Why would this text message be admissible, when ones like "I'm with NFL" aren't?
JimBoSox9 said:
Probably because the basic rule is that the jury forms their own impression about what a photo shows.
(The prosecutor made his point to the jury though. It's not a black blob. If she was forced to, she'd have to admit it looks like it could be the gun from the drawer. That's one of those "can't lose" questions, BTW, she gives you the answer you want, or she gives you plenty of traction to go after a patently unreasonable answer.)
theapportioner said:
1) it's a statement by the defendant.
2) it's made to a joint venturer/co-conspirator (MA law controls - that's a guess on my part.)
Jnai said:
OK. This brings us up to 4 varieties of "maybe/neutral" for SJ's testimony thus far. (If that's a fair way to characterize these responses.) Anyone else?
We're looking for opinions on her demeanor, not smoking guns, per se. Is she sketchy or not? Does she seem coached? Does she come across as trustworthy or not? If she had the most relevant testimony on some point, would you trust her? Is she sympathetic? Do we "feel" for her? That sort of thing.
I'd also love to hear people's analysis of the likely veracity of her testimony, but I'm very curious as to impressions of her demeanor.
Yes. Excellent point, and I'm sure part of the prosecution's strategy. (I'd love to see the jury's faces - watching how SJ reacted to the picture they've already seen over and over.)Joshv02 said:
The question itself is the real tell AFAIC. It's a tacit admission to the jury that she thinks AH is capable of killing someone.DaughtersofDougMirabelli said:
Rovin Romine said:
I've been following but not watching the trial, but I would say she's been fairly 'sterile' and most of this has seemed fairly orthogonal as to the question as to Aaron Hernandez's guilt.
Cognac and wings?
Aside from the questions about the gun, I don't think there have been many questions that would make me think she'd be lying or not. Questions about when, where, and by what route they took for Father's Day dinner, are like eh to me. That she doesn't remember all the details or hesitates with a few of those answers doesn't make me think one way or another about her trustworthiness.
We have a close-up view of the witness at all times, but I assume the jury doesn't have such a close look? That she might bat her eyelashes a bit more with certain questions isn't something that I would necessarily pick up from that distance unless I was specifically looking for it.
We have a close-up view of the witness at all times, but I assume the jury doesn't have such a close look? That she might bat her eyelashes a bit more with certain questions isn't something that I would necessarily pick up from that distance unless I was specifically looking for it.
Rovin Romine said:
I haven't been able to watch much of the livestream. I will say that based on only seeing photos of her to this point, her delivery/demeanor give me a positive impression compared to what I expected from someone who cakes on the makeup and whose only job is athlete's girlfriend. I'm sort of exasperated on her behalf of having to remember things like how long someone was her boyfriend's barber. However, I thought it strange that she doesn't know the babysitter's last name, as I'd imagine Shayanna's world revolved around that child. However, maybe being super-wealthy by proxy, the details of the little people are something you forget.
P'tucket said:
That's not in front of the jury yet - that was asked in voir dire.
As an aside - question order is important insofar as it can color a jury's evaluation of a witness. There's no absolute rule or way to order the questions/topics. One common choice is whether you begin with "normal/easy" questions then roast the witness at the end (with the inference that nothing said earlier is trustworthy), or pop 'em right away with something that shows their sketchiness and let that erode the normal/easy questions you need to ask (with the risk that the normal/easy questions might let the witness somewhat rehabilitate themselves).
I would definitely say that the not knowing the babysitters name, then showing they took the babysitter to Mexico seemed kind of odd.
Also when she seemed hesitant to say that AH's mother watched her grandkid for them so they could go out struck me kind of funny.
The mundane stuff doesn't appear to be a big deal, though if she thinks about something she never really answers "No", but she is very quick to answer when the answer is a simple "no"/"I don't know"/"I'm confused".
Also when she seemed hesitant to say that AH's mother watched her grandkid for them so they could go out struck me kind of funny.
The mundane stuff doesn't appear to be a big deal, though if she thinks about something she never really answers "No", but she is very quick to answer when the answer is a simple "no"/"I don't know"/"I'm confused".
bosoxsue said:
OK - that's a 5th not-sketcy/neutral vote. Edit - we'll as Knuck as a 6th. And GeorgeCostanza makes it 6-2.
As to the bolded, I'm clearly reading much more significance into things like that than most people are. (I view it as an indication she's coached on the big issues and can't honestly and forthrightly answer the small off-script issues - which implies she's prepared to lie if one of those small issues could hurt AH - which implies she's lying on the big issues.)
Seems like we should go with the group consensus - if our average SOSHer thinks not-sketchy/neutral, the jury probably feels not-sketchy/neutral.
The testimony is far from over, and we haven't touched on anything truly juicy except for the gun in the drawer. But if it were to end now, based on the not-sketcy/neutral impression, her testimony would be a "win" for the defense.
My impression, based on her remember minute details of some things, and then can't recall about others, is that she's shady. I Also think the prosecutor is handling her very well, staying completely respectful, even a kind tone.
HomeRunBaker said:
Like EE said, this is a feature, not a bug. I have one experience as a juror, some experience herding jurors when I did summer work for a judge, and a very little bit of experience working in front of juries (for reasons unimportant here, most of my arguments are not in front of jurors).
It's my (limited) experience that most jurors, regardless of education level, take their responsibilities very seriously, and try their best to fulfill their charge, although they have biases, as do we all.
I have found (again, SSS) that working class jurors apply their street smarts and common sense, which is as it should be, especially in matters of witness credibility, etc.
The only one I see twisting things into overly-intellectual-to-the-point of-absurdity scenarios is college-educated you, homie
Breaking for Lunch - resuming at 2pm. Thanks everyone for writing in and sharing your impressions! (Not that it's my thread or anything.)
Maybe a non-loss, but even then I think its pretty bad for the defense. She sees AH get drunk and high, they get the "i fucked up" text through, they get the gun car (which may not make a ton of sense, but none of AH's life makes sense), they get someone talking about all the pot he smokes, again; they get him drunk and high at the start of the night that matters; they continually call a co-conspirator "bo," they get her to basically say AH used OL for pot but that they weren't friends even though he came over and they smoked up in the basement. And we just had lunch.Rovin Romine said:
I've been listening in the background at work, did the prosecution really put her social security number up in front of the whole court? If so, how sloppy can you be? I know it's not central to the case, but as a juror I think that would color how I viewed the witness and the prosecutor.
Joshv02 said:
OilCanShotTupac said:
I don't disagree re: the facts established (or reinforced) - I was focusing on the demeanor issue.
If she came across as sketchy AND the state solicited all these facts, it would be a huge loss for the defense right from the get-go. If the jury believed that SJ thought AH was guilty or that SJ was covering for AH (likely because he was guilty), that may be irrecoverable. (Sort of like the Michael Dunn case - it's the only media case sort of on point that I can think of offhand.)
If she comes across as neutral (and is allowed to establish that baseline in front of the jury, prior to the lunch break), the state has to now move uphill if they're going to suggest that she's lying later on.
It's very possible that the state burns her credibility down completely on the gun/box/garbage bag issue, regardless of how sympathetic she could possibly be early on in her testimony. So all these initial impressions may be for naught. However, there is a risk she gets more comfortable (and she'll be coached by her attorney during the lunch break, to be sure), and there's a risk she'll have a juror latch onto her. Thus, I'd have seriously considered exposing her early on in her testimony. Long way to go though, so we'll see.
PS - and perhaps the prosecutor thinks as I do, that the jury is seeing her testimony as kind of suspicious thus far. But assuming our SOSH SSS is correct re: an average juror's impression, this would be a good illustration of how experience and familiarity could lead one astray in trial strategy. It's the jury's view that matters, not the opinions/experience of the advocates.
yeahlunchbox said:
I believe they did. It's also a huge no-no from an ethical/bar rules perspective in all the jurisdictions I'm familiar with, unless it was relevant to the case. Even so, it should have been redacted.
Assuming direct isn't wrapped up by the end of the day, does that give the defense an advantage in that she will get some additional prep over the weekend? Now that the defense knows how she's being handled and the direction of direct?
- Status