Aaron Hernandez Trial (Odin Lloyd)

[Rovin Romine]

 
Thanks. What I'm trying to get at it whether (unlike, perhaps, a civil case) you've encountered juror sentiment that witnesses really play it straight with prosecutors.  I could imagine a law and order jury being pissed at a witness because they fought a prosecutor (that's the government--you should tell them the truth); I could likewise could imagine  jurors from communities that had problems with abusive cops/prosecutors having no problems with people being evasive. Have you personally run into anything like that?

 
Not really.  Not in a way to make it a trend.  I'd say about 95% of witnesses (if not more) in criminal trials are called by the state.   Victims, custodians of records, cops, etc.  The defense will sometimes call eyewitnesses and experts.  Mostly they don't fight prosecutors per se - defense friendly eyewitnesses tell what happened, defense experts are pros enough (usually) not to play games.  Sometimes the defendant testifies.  I'd guess my ratio of calling defense witnesses (including the defendant) at trial is about 1 in every 10 cases?  Maybe less.  And those witnesses are fully prepped not to adopt an attitude that will make them a liability instead of a help.  
 
It really devolves to the particulars, I think.  I'm not saying the dynamic you're thinking about is incorrect in particular cases, just that I'm not sure it's a useful generalization.  Crappy witnesses usually hurt the side that they're "on," to the extent that they're relevant.  There's also a question of how much that side "invites" the problems in the witness's testimony.  Juries can see an attorney fishing for facts and deflecting bias;  I'd like to think they don't hold that against that attorney's client.  Juries can also see an attorney eliciting "shady" stuff - here, the testimony that the box smelled of MJ (for the first time today) is something that would, in light of SJ's other testimony, make me raise my eyes as a juror.  It might also cause me to mistrust the defense.  

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

The only explanation that makes sense as an alternative to the murder weapon being in the box is drugs. I could totally buy that a guy who is into as much crap as AH has a cardboard box in his mancave where he keeps his stash. But, if that's the case, she would know what was in the box without having to look in it, and the fact that she claims she doesn't know and didn't look, is a bad.
 
There is a short list of things the prosecution doesn't have in this case. Murder weapon is still on the list, but just barely.

 

[OCST]

I haven't watched any testimony - so I should be careful, because witnesses' effectiveness turns on their credibility, which is a function of their demeanor.
 
But from what I'm reading, here and elsewhere, the ship be sinking.

 

[bosoxsue]

 
After reading this I'm even more confused than before... How does the defense help their case by getting her to remember all these other details?  Are they trying to blame the lack of memory for these issues on stress?  Because if I'm on that jury, the defense pointing out everything she can remember makes everything else even more unbelievable and helps the prosecution's case.

 
That story points out something she did that a commenter mentioned earlier -- covering the contents of the box with baby clothes? What an odd thing to do, and an odd thing to remember, for that matter.

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
After reading this I'm even more confused than before... How does the defense help their case by getting her to remember all these other details?  Are they trying to blame the lack of memory for these issues on stress?  Because if I'm on that jury, the defense pointing out everything she can remember makes everything else even more unbelievable and helps the prosecution's case.

 
Yeah.  I have the same questions.  It was weird all the way around.  
 
The feeling I get after this is that a lot of facts/implications were scattered on the ground and the jury's going to have to pick them up and put them together.   That might not be so bad in a short case where you have a good close set up to organize everything.  But here, the trial's drawn out.  So, personally I'd want the jury thinking about the import of the facts I elicited (on either side - prosecution or defense) while the trial was going on.  You know they're going to think about what just happened when they go home tonight.  So try to provide some structure for how it impacts the case.  

 

[Rovin Romine]

The only explanation that makes sense as an alternative to the murder weapon being in the box is drugs. I could totally buy that a guy who is into as much crap as AH has a cardboard box in his mancave where he keeps his stash. But, if that's the case, she would know what was in the box without having to look in it, and the fact that she claims she doesn't know and didn't look, is a bad.
 
There is a short list of things the prosecution doesn't have in this case. Murder weapon is still on the list, but just barely.

 
The prosecution established that she thought the box weighed 35-40 pounds, based on its relative weight to her own child.  
 
So assuming it's a get rid of contraband move, which is the only thing that remotely explains SJ's actions with the box, the weight rules out drugs.  We're left with gun(s) and ammo.   Or guns, ammo and drugs.  
 
SJ's clearly painted a target on her back though.  Especially with that last minute "it smelled like MJ."  I imagine the state will be turning over whatever stones it can find.  

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
That story points out something she did that a commenter mentioned earlier -- covering the contents of the box with baby clothes? What an odd thing to do, and an odd thing to remember, for that matter.

 
I think it was caught on video, so she "had" to remember it.  

 

[Rovin Romine]

Here's another not followed up implication - if SJ was OK with the cheating and the drug use, why did AH text her to say he fucked up and was bugging about OL?  

 

[joe dokes]

 
After reading this I'm even more confused than before... How does the defense help their case by getting her to remember all these other details?  Are they trying to blame the lack of memory for these issues on stress?  Because if I'm on that jury, the defense pointing out everything she can remember makes everything else even more unbelievable and helps the prosecution's case.

 
It helps a bit to go back to first principles.  The defense has a pretty bad case to deal with.  AH's side didn't call her to the stand.  They can't just say "no questions." (They can, of course, but for the fiancee to have nothing good to offer would be a bad thing).  The defense is really left trying to turn chicken shit into chicken salad that at least one juror will eat.

 

[Jnai]

@RR: I only got to see the first part of the first day of SJ testimony, but reading the reports, it sounds like the prosecution made a tactical decision to not try to "nail" her with any of this stuff. Reading reports, the questions seem fairly unaggressive and less "gotcha" than they could have been. Is it possible that they felt they had an extremely strong case without her and didn't want to appear to be "attacking" a young woman on the stand? It sounds like maybe they missed some opportunities here, but maybe it's better to characterize them as having "pulled some punches" for strategic reasons? 

 

[hittery]

It's possible that the prosecution feels that her selective memory is damaging enough to her credibility, and that really going after her would be like beating a dead horse. I think they're doing a really good job of showing restraint (and good manners), while eliciting enough in the way of facts to string together a closing argument that will make it very difficult for this jury to acquit Aaron.

(Now, about the shoes: I could not testify as to my husband's shoes. I seriously have no idea what brand he wears, and I have only a general idea of what they look like. So I don't think that part of her testimony was all that important.)

 

[Rovin Romine]

@RR: I only got to see the first part of the first day of SJ testimony, but reading the reports, it sounds like the prosecution made a tactical decision to not try to "nail" her with any of this stuff. Reading reports, the questions seem fairly unaggressive and less "gotcha" than they could have been. Is it possible that they felt they had an extremely strong case without her and didn't want to appear to be "attacking" a young woman on the stand? It sounds like maybe they missed some opportunities here, but maybe it's better to characterize them as having "pulled some punches" for strategic reasons? 

 
Very possible.  You can still rake her over the coals without "attacking," though.  My quasi-gripe is more about the lack of structure than the "aggressiveness" of the questions.  You can make your "gentle" points a couple of times over.  If she says X and you show Y with phone records, you can ask if she's still committed to X as her testimony, even after Y.  Then just ask her to explain the difference between the two.  No matter what she says, you win, if you're prepared to follow it up.  
 
I default to a sort of "Let them establish X, invite them to flesh out X, then take X apart with Y" approach to testimony; it gives Y it's greatest value by contrast.  But you don't have to be a jerk as you do it.  

 

[Average Reds]

 
I think it was caught on video, so she "had" to remember it.  

 
I have not followed any of the trial live - in fact, I'd say that 90% of my updates come from this thread, so kudos to you RR for your coverage - so I can't comment on the skill of the prosecutor.  But it strikes me that this is the kind of detail that can be used to drive the proverbial nail into the coffin of AH at this trial.

• She can't provide an explanation for why it was so important for her to leave her grieving sister right away to get rid of a box.
• She has no idea why she would cover the contents of the box or who she was hiding them from. 
• She claims not to know what was in the box, despite explaining that the contents were visible if left uncovered.
• She thinks the box might have contained marijuana because of the smell.
• She has no idea where she went looking for a place to dispose of the guns marijuana. 
• She has no idea where she actually disposed of the guns marijuana.
• And yet ... she knows exactly what she used to cover up the contents of the box.  Because it was important to cover the box, even if she doesn't know why it's important or who she needs to keep from seeing the contents. 

Of course, when the testimony turned to to discussing her life with the defendant, she suddenly became a human tape recorder.  No detail was too insignificant or unimportant for her to remember, often in glorious detail.
 
She's lying to protect her man and everyone knows this.  In the hands of a skillful prosecutor, these facts will be absolutely devastating during the close.

 

[Joshv02]

What was very well done is that they could put together a very good story that gives the persecution a lot by keeping her tired to the documents (atm or cc receipts or phone calls) and photos (security cam) without any real assistance. Yet that they got a real, compelling and coherent story that helps them.

That's very hard. I thought it was fantastic both in story and skill. They got a completely unhelpful witness to give them a story she couldn't deny and they didn't try to tear into her.

 

[smastroyin]

I'm still amazed the security system was still recording video at the point that she was dumping the box. 

 

[NortheasternPJ]

I'm still amazed the security system was still recording video at the point that she was dumping the box. 

If anything this trial has proven he's not the brightest bulb on the tree.

 

[Rovin Romine]

If anything this trial has proven he's not the brightest bulb on the tree.

 
 
Think about it - AH picks up OL, not bothering to hide that, and drives him to within a mile of his house, where OL is killed.  Most thought-out murders involve making sure you don't have direct traceable contact with the victim and doing the killing in such a way so as not to implicate yourself.  Even the classic "drive by shooting" qualifies.  Which AH is alleged to have done before. 
 

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

 
The prosecution established that she thought the box weighed 35-40 pounds, based on its relative weight to her own child.  
 
So assuming it's a get rid of contraband move, which is the only thing that remotely explains SJ's actions with the box, the weight rules out drugs.  We're left with gun(s) and ammo.   Or guns, ammo and drugs.  
 
SJ's clearly painted a target on her back though.  Especially with that last minute "it smelled like MJ."  I imagine the state will be turning over whatever stones it can find.  

 
The weight actually rules out a single gun as well. Which could mean she is lying about the weight of the box by attempting to testify the weight of the box precludes it from being a box containing a single gun. Problem of course is that takes drugs alone out of the equation as well, which is the defenses most likely explanatory scenario. The problem for the prosecution is they can't use the 35-40 pounds as an argument to say it wasn't drugs, because what you're saying is it weighs too much to be a gun also. Attempts to say what was in the box to bring it to the weight needed to match her testimony is going to be a bad play absent some real evidence. So if they say, it was guns and ammo, they better have some evidence there was ammo in the box or its a path they need to stay away from. 
 
My guess is prosecution will hammer away that she dumped evidence and be selective in the details, and defense will hammer away that the box weighed 20 times more than a loaded gun.
 
Edit: Not a statement toward your position RR, just a general post in response to the weight issue.

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
The weight actually rules out a single gun as well. Which could mean she is lying about the weight of the box by attempting to testify the weight of the box precludes it from being a box containing a single gun. Problem of course is that takes drugs alone out of the equation as well, which is the defenses most likely explanatory scenario. The problem for the prosecution is they can't use the 35-40 pounds as an argument to say it wasn't drugs, because what you're saying is it weighs too much to be a gun also. Attempts to say what was in the box to bring it to the weight needed to match her testimony is going to be a bad play absent some real evidence. So if they say, it was guns and ammo, they better have some evidence there was ammo in the box or its a path they need to stay away from. 
 
My guess is prosecution will hammer away that she dumped evidence and be selective in the details, and defense will hammer away that the box weighed 20 times more than a loaded gun.
 
Edit: Not a statement toward your position RR, just a general post in response to the weight issue.

 
General posts spring boarding off another post are a feature of this thread.   FWIW, the prosecution can argue that SJ dumped something from the house, and that something appears to be a box, based on the texting and video and so forth.  She also took out $800 at the ATM while disposing of the mystery object from the basement.   But how far can you trust her testimony?  What if it was just a gunbox with a gun and ammo in it.  Do we really believe it was a cardboard box with little boxes in it that weighted 35lbs?  Do we really believe it was put in a dumpster?  What we do know is that the gun went into the basement via tape, and the gun came out of the basement via SJ.  

 

[Super Nomario]

 
Yeah.  I have the same questions.  It was weird all the way around.  
 
The feeling I get after this is that a lot of facts/implications were scattered on the ground and the jury's going to have to pick them up and put them together.   That might not be so bad in a short case where you have a good close set up to organize everything.  But here, the trial's drawn out.  So, personally I'd want the jury thinking about the import of the facts I elicited (on either side - prosecution or defense) while the trial was going on.  You know they're going to think about what just happened when they go home tonight.  So try to provide some structure for how it impacts the case.  

I've really enjoyed your take on the case and the strategies that the respective lawyers are using. I'm curious as to how much you think it affects things and how much is professional interest / curiosity on your part. What percentage of cases are actually swung by especially good or bad work by the lawyers? In a perfect world, the answer would be really low.
 

 
General posts spring boarding off another post are a feature of this thread.   FWIW, the prosecution can argue that SJ dumped something from the house, and that something appears to be a box, based on the texting and video and so forth.  She also took out $800 at the ATM while disposing of the mystery object from the basement.   But how far can you trust her testimony?  What if it was just a gunbox with a gun and ammo in it.  Do we really believe it was a cardboard box with little boxes in it that weighted 35lbs?  Do we really believe it was put in a dumpster?  What we do know is that the gun went into the basement via tape, and the gun came out of the basement via SJ.  

The bolded makes me wonder how important SJ's testimony really is regarding the box. On the surface her testimony is damning, but I'm not sure it actually provides any real evidence towards AH's guilt. We know Hernandez returned from the shooting with a gun, and we know the cops didn't find a gun later. Does it really matter how the gun disappeared? I guess it establishes that a pattern of unusual behavior that points to a cover-up, but it looks like soft evidence rather than hard evidence. Is it really necessary for the prosecution to establish a story as to why the cops didn't find the gun? "He got rid of the gun because it was a murder weapon" seams pretty obvious reasoning once we've established that Hernandez had the gun.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

I'm still amazed the security system was still recording video at the point that she was dumping the box.

That's the thing (besides a man being dead) that leaves me shaking my head. If he wasn't so dumb, I'd say the fact that the cameras were still rolling when AH first went out for the night almost rules out any sort of premeditation.

 

[Average Reds]

That's the thing (besides a man being dead) that leaves me shaking my head. If he wasn't so dumb, I'd say the fact that the cameras were still rolling when AH first went out for the night almost rules out any sort of premeditation.

You mean other than the mountain of evidence of premeditation?

Stupidity is not the same thing as lack of premeditation.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I've really enjoyed your take on the case and the strategies that the respective lawyers are using. I'm curious as to how much you think it affects things and how much is professional interest / curiosity on your part. What percentage of cases are actually swung by especially good or bad work by the lawyers? In a perfect world, the answer would be really low.
 
The bolded makes me wonder how important SJ's testimony really is regarding the box. On the surface her testimony is damning, but I'm not sure it actually provides any real evidence towards AH's guilt. We know Hernandez returned from the shooting with a gun, and we know the cops didn't find a gun later. Does it really matter how the gun disappeared? I guess it establishes that a pattern of unusual behavior that points to a cover-up, but it looks like soft evidence rather than hard evidence. Is it really necessary for the prosecution to establish a story as to why the cops didn't find the gun? "He got rid of the gun because it was a murder weapon" seams pretty obvious reasoning once we've established that Hernandez had the gun.

 
In one sense, the overall percentage is really really low.   Maybe 95% of all cases are pled out - which means both sides agree on the "worth" of the case.  Of the 5% that go to trial, a certain number of those are forgone - tried because the state won't offer a deal or the defendant won't take any deal, regardless.   Then there's the type of case where one side over/under values the case, and it's tried to get to sentencing. There are other variants, but basically they're all flaws of the case valuing process, due to political reasons, mental illness, cocky attorneys and clients, judges who won't approve good deals, etc. You could say that the ability to try "winning" cases when the other side misvalues a case is a skill, but I think you're asking about swaying the jury in a close case.   
 
Well, when you take all those out, there are a number of 50-50 guilt/innocence type cases that the parties can't value (can't plea).  In *those* cases skill can make quite a bit of difference.  So, in a sense, a decent percentage of the cases that go to trial can turn on the skill of the attorneys to push the issue to one side of the line or the other.  (In a crim case, the line's actually reasonable doubt v. no reasonable doubt, but we're talking about cases where reasonable juries could go either way.)  Overall though, the facts are what the facts are.  And even in the 50-50 type cases, sometimes crazy witness or unforeseen events can sink one side or the other, regardless of attorney skill. 
 
In another sense, attorney skill impacts lots of cases.  Skill can manifest not only in seizing an opportunity in trial, but rather in negotiating a horrible case into a favorable plea, or causing a witness to implode in a deposition, etc.  Basically changing the value of a case pre trial.  
 
***
As to the gun, it very much helps the prosecution to show AH's agent (extension of himself) destroyed evidence or could have destroyed evidence.  

 

[Rovin Romine]

You mean other than the mountain of evidence of premeditation?

Stupidity is not the same thing as lack of premeditation.

 
Agreed.  Also, premeditation can occur in the time it takes to read this sentence.  Wrestling with the angels of temptation isn't required.

 

[Norm loves Vera]

RR... Can the Prosecutors call up SJ again?  or is that a dead horse?

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

This thread is really the only thing I'm looking at about the trial so I might have some details wrong.  The questions about defense counsel removing evidence are explosive to me.  If I'm a judge and I hear this question for the first time in open court with no advance warning that anything like that is coming, I would absolutely lose my shit.  I also think I would likely, at the very first opportunity that did not emphasize it, figure out what the hell was going on.  If none of that happened, it's hard to believe this wasn't something that was brought to the court's attention at some point earlier.  If the prosecutor has a good faith basis for asking the question, then I would think he has to have made some sort of disclosure.  You're saying that the defendant's agent concealed evidence.  If the prosecutor didn't disclose whatever evidence he has for the assertion, and brought it up anyway, that seems like dirty pool or a violation of whatever those rules are that require pretrial disclosure of inculpatory evidence.
 
Beyond all that, I see two potentially significant problems with the question.  First, if the jury believes that the lawyers advocating before them have done something wrong, there is a clear danger that it will implicate the way they view everything those lawyers do or so.  Second, it seems to me that it presents a conflict.  It presents at least a danger that the lawyer must try the case in a way that puts his own interest above the client's.  
 
It's also the kind of question that is completely unreasonable if it hasn't been cleared first, because forcing the defense counsel to object in the moment makes it 100 times worse.
 
If I knew that these questions were going to be asked before the jury in my several month trial, I would really put the prosecutor through his paces before I would let him mention it. If I knew before trial that the questions were going to be asked, and I determined they were ok, I could see notifying the defendant of the potential conflict on the record, noting the potential impact on his case, and getting him to affirm that he wanted to go forward with the same lawyers at trial, or give him a reasonable opportunity to find other lawyers.  
I also would really be hesitant to allow these questions without evidence that AH requested the lawyer to remove the shoes.  

 

[Kull]

It's interesting that she withdrew $800 in cash, considering the cleaning fee was $300 and she was told (presumably) to give $500 to the accomplices. Yes, she later wrote a check to pay the cleaning ladies, but it's at least conceivable that getting cash to pay them was in her mind at the start. It would be surprising if the defense didn't bring that up in cross (and they might have, I just haven't heard that they did).

 

[SumnerH]

 
Basically it would be an independent criminal investigation.  Also, you can ask who went in and who went out, but the question was whether the defense attorneys had removed items.  That crosses a line - you have to have a good faith basis to ask a question like that. 

This makes a ton of sense. But is there a mechanism in a case like this to suspend the first trial while you have that second one? There would certainly need to be checks and balances to prevent nonsense delaying tactics. But if you actually think the Hernandez lawyers took away evidence that trial seems to be important prior to discerning what happened in the Hernandez case.

 

[RetractableRoof]

Question: depending on the type of immunity the gf was offered, does it make sense for her to 'admit' that the garbage bag was removing marijuana and various accompanying bulky glassware? Would that explain away the furtive 'taking out the trash' question?

I'm surprised that somewhere along the way that she wasn't able to recall the sound of glass touching within the box. Covers the weight, any abnormal shape issues, and her reluctance to admit to doing it without immunity. Then again, I didn't even sleep at a Motel 6...

 

[Average Reds]

I'm surprised that somewhere along the way that she wasn't able to recall the sound of glass touching within the box. Covers the weight, any abnormal shape issues, and her reluctance to admit to doing it without immunity. Then again, I didn't even sleep at a Motel 6...

 
Question for the lawyers.
 
I'm assuming that the reason that Jenkins didn't offer details like the ones suggested above is based on defense counsel's ethical obligation not to allow testimony they know to be fabricated.  It's one thing for Jenkins to be coached in the dark arts of what to remember or what to suggest as an alternate hypothetical.  It's quite another for Jenkins to suddenly remember extremely specific details she has never mentioned before even though those details are incredibly helpful to AH.
 
So if Jenkins wants to suggest that there was the smell of marijuana in the basement and perhaps the box so the jury can imagine that she might have been lugging something other than guns out of the house, that probably keeps the lawyers clean.  But to testify to specific details like glass clinking is such an obvious (and recent) fabrication that I'm guessing that she might have been instructed not to say this.

 

[Corsi]

Ted Daniel ‏@TedDanielFOX25  1m1 minute ago
BREAKING: Patriots owner Robert Kraft at court building where #AaronHernandezTrial underway

 

[Shelterdog]

Per the twitters Robert Kraft testifying today.
 
EDIT: Why the fuck do I bother. Beaten by the king. 

 

[Norm loves Vera]

kraft on the stand now..

 

[Corsi]

On the stand now.
 
http://www.myfoxboston.com/category/267951/aaron-hernandez-livestream

 

[NortheasternPJ]

He told Kraft he was at a club when the murder happened. That's not good for AH.

 

[Shelterdog]

He told Kraft he was at a club when the murder happened. That's not good for AH.

 
 How would Hernandez know when exactly the murder happened if he wasn't there?

 

[NortheasternPJ]

The prosecutor seems to be stumbling all over himself.

 

[ifmanis5]

CNN taking this live...

 

[steveluck7]

As is 98.5

 

[Shelterdog]

 Time for the cross.  This might not go so good for Kraft-just because he gets tongue tied.

 

[steveluck7]

Where did Aaron Hernandez go to college?
 
Florida
 
University of Florida?

Uh,, yes... Urban Meyer was there... i always get them mixed up

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Defense setting up the AH is a good guy, great player, can't possibly murder someone angle.

 

[steveluck7]

So they're asking him about details of Hernandez's contract. Kraft explains that he doesn't get into those details. If the defense thinks those are relevant, will they call BB?

 

[CantKeepmedown]

With regards to the contract, "I dont get into the details, I just sign off on it"

 

[NortheasternPJ]

BB's definitely getting called after the contract. 
 
The defense harping on the conversation about AH saying he wasn't involved isn't doing anything positive for me. All it's doing is showing AH is a liar since he was involved to the point he was there. 

 

[Ed Hillel]

Hugged and kissed, there's the future headline.

 

[Ed Hillel]

If the time of the murder wasn't public at that time, it's fairly damning.

 

[ifmanis5]

Kraft's memory is pretty bad for a billionaire. His 'what's a chair?' strategy is a classic. Will BB be next?

 

[Joshv02]

Patriots security head?

 

[gtmtnbiker]

Patriots security head?

 
Yup, Mark Briggs is on the stand now.