Aaron Hernandez Trial (Odin Lloyd)
- Thread starter Rovin Romine
- Start date
- Status
It could mean its been a long couple weeks and they want to watch The Masters. Jurors are human too.Omar's Wacky Neighbor said:
At this point though I imagine the Jury is sick of it and just want it to be over. I would have been willing to accept that there were some delays because of the distractions but not now. You should expect them to tell the Judge on Monday that they are hung and we'll see what the Judge says.
BTW I think he should be convicted of Murder 2 but could see a juror or two not being convinced.
BTW I think he should be convicted of Murder 2 but could see a juror or two not being convinced.
Merkle's Boner said:
Really? Not one of them has been on the internet, specifically facebook, yahoo, any news or sports site, in the last month plus? They all manage to avoid every single commercial break on network television that teases the upcoming news at 5 or 6, in which they'll talk about the AH trial? None of them have any friends or relatives that would even mention AH in passing? I mean, if that were true, they also would have had to have missed all of the news about the Tsarnaev trial, or that plane that was crashed into a mountain on purpose and every other major news story in the past 6 weeks because you couldn't watch the news, read a paper or go on a news site without also being inundated with something about AH, even if you were able to stop yourself at just seeing the headline and a giant picture of his face.
I certainly don't doubt that there are a bunch of folks out there that literally know nothing about sports and care about them even less, watch very little news, don't go on Facebook or use the internet that often, my wife being one of them, but even my wife has run into enough of the aforementioned to at least say "Yeah, he's that sports guy that killed someone or is on trial or something," even if she knows nothing more than that.
I have a very, very hard time believing that the parties managed to find the 15 people (including the alternates) that literally managed and are still managing to avoid every single piece of information related to AH. And if they did, are these people really a sampling of "our peers?" I'll leave it at that.
Deathofthebambino said:
Is your wife your peer? Especially in the definition used in terms of a jury?
Honest question, how much of the next to nothing your wife might be able to scratch up about AH is a direct result of you taking interest in it? Like you mentioning it over dinner or hearing you discuss it with a friend or you're watching the news while she makes dinner or you left the sports page on the kitchen counter and she may have seen the picture and headline? If you were the exact equivalent to her in your interests, hobbies, career and habits, how much would she know then? Further, if she was selected for the jury and told to avoid discussion of the case and media coverage, would she not be able to? Would she actively seek it out despite instruction?
I think people are really unrealistic about the habits and interests of other people in society. And the example you use is a good indicator of that. This is not the Marathon Bombing. It is not nearly that pervasive, the crime or the trial. The President didn't attend OL's funeral memorial mass. To many, many people this is some gang banger football player that killed his buddy when they were doing drugs. And that's the end of their knowledge and interest in it.
Further, that level of knowledge does not preclude them from being on the jury. They aren't required to live in a protective bubble, they are just required to not actively seek out further information to form an opinion beyond what they are presented in court. I don't find Merkle's claim outrageous at all, especially the part where he says they certainly wouldn't know anything about the South Boston trial (which was the question he was responding to). I can list a dozen people I know off the top of my head that certainly know nothing about those killings and wouldn't be able to provide more than the quote from your wife about AH in general and a couple I would say most likely don't even know that.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
The answer to the bolded question is zero. Frankly, I have zero interest in the AH trial outside of this thread. I can't remember discussing it with anyone outside of here, except for maybe at a Patriots game or two. It's just not a conversation I'm having in my daily life. Haven't read a single story about it, or sought out a second of news coverage since the trial started, except for a few that have come as alerts on my phone due to me having a couple of sports news apps. I have never once discussed the AH case or even mentioned his name around her. We watch no television together that isn't on DVR and fast-forwarded through commercials, and I don't have any written information laying around the house that would provide her any information about AH or the case. I guarantee that if AH were not being charged for murder, she would have no clue who he is. She didn't know who Gronk was until this year's Super Bowl, and I've had season tickets for over 20 years. She may very well not know anything about AH or the trial, but I find it hard to believe. I'll have to ask her in the morning. However, I do know that she watches network television, and while we don't watch television together, we watch some of the same shows, and I know for a fact those shows routinely have teased that there will be "breaking news" on the AH trial coming up later on during commercial breaks. I also know that she is aware of some other recent news stories, like the plane crash or the Tsarnaev trial, and I don't know how it's possible to know anything of substance about them without also happening to catch, even just out of the corner of your eye, something about AH. She also has a job, and interacts with dozens of other people on a daily basis, who seem to talk about things like current events and such. To literally know nothing, absolutely nothing about AH and live locally, would require a level of shut in-ness that I think can be fine for 1-2 people, but if I stuck 15 of those people in a room together and called them my peers, I would seriously have to reconsider what I'm doing with my life.
I was not responding to Merckle's claim about the people at his wife's work not knowing about the South Boston trial. I was responding to the first part where he wrote "My wife works for a local non-profit and not a one of them would be aware of AH." I find that to be crazy. Believe me, I deal with the public pretty much all day long, and it'll never cease to amaze me how little most people know about what's going on in the world around them, but to find a group of people, employed in the same place, who literally have not seen the local news in YEARS is just flat out difficult to believe. And while I agree that we aren't talking about the level of attention the Tsarnaev trial got, I don't think it's all that much less, especially if you live in the Boston market. But, you'd have to even take it a step further than that. These people would not only have to avoid the local news. They'd have to avoid facebook feeds, any other news sites, sports sites, newspapers, magazines, conversations around the water cooler, on the street, on the bus, on the radio, etc. to have never even HEARD of AH. I'm willing to bet a lot of money that if I took a poll of every 5 people randomly selected in the Boston area and asked them if they had any clue who Aaron Hernandez was, I would never find a group of 5 that all said no. I have no idea how many people work at his wife's non-profit, but yes, I find it outrageous to think that every single one of them has heard nothing about AH.
Let's also not forget that this AH news didn't start 6 weeks ago when the trial started either. He was the #1 story on the news during dozens (hundreds?) of news casts over the past 2 years. From the time of the initial murder and investigation, to his dismissal from the Patriots, to the arrest, to the connection to the other murders, to his trial. It came up during a shit ton of coverage at the time of the Super Bowl, which the Patriots just won. Yeah, I'll stand by what I said, I don't buy that there are all that many people locally that literally know nothing about AH.
And yes, I know that the jurors aren't precluded just because they know something about AH, having gone to law school and all. All I said, and this was going back to another conversation in the thread, that I don't believe that everyone on that jury knows nothing about AH. And if they were all complete shut-ins that managed to walk through life without noticing one of the biggest news stories in their hometown for YEARS, no, I wouldn't consider that a jury of my peers. One or two of them? Fine. But all of them? Nope.
Deathofthebambino said:
I'm responding to the bolded here just to provide a little context. My sister-in-law was called in for jury duty the same day they were choosing jurors for the AH trial. She was chosen and assigned to a different, smaller case that was quickly resolved but there was a lot of buzz in the building because of the AH case. She knew nothing about it even though she lives very close to where it all actually went down. A couple of guys on her jury explained who he was and what he was accused of. She has a degree in chemical engineering and is someone you could describe as extremely bright and successful. But she is laser-focused on her career and her daughter. In her own words, she told me "I would have been perfect for that jury", meaning the AH case.
For her, the cultural buzz of events is white noise that she ignores; she feels it provides her with nothing and is only a distraction. And the rest of her family is like this too, they have a "why are you wasting your time?" attitude about sports, politics and current events in general. If it isn't work or kids, it isn't worth your time. It's not a perspective I share obviously (I've been following this thread obsessively) but I believe there are enough people out there who block this stuff out to put together a jury.
canvass ali said:
"The system" isn't looking for the totally unaware. Its the extent of the awareness and the ability to nevertheless enter with an open mind. The trial started about 1.5 years after the crime. Much of the day-to-day play-by-play recedes from many minds. And what's made public is only the tip of the evidentiary iceberg usually.
"Yeah, I remember a lot of news when he got arrested." "Yes, I can decide this case based only on the evidence."
I stay on top of current events. I dont watch local tv news more than 10 times a year; I dont listen to talk radio. I certainly knew who AH is and what he's accused of, but from following this thread, I can see that I was either unaware of or had forgotten nearly all details.
joe dokes said:
Yeah, I agree with everything you say here...I didn't mean to imply that one needs to live inside a vacuum in order to be a good juror on a high profile case like this. Plenty of people would fall into your description (including myself in most respects) and would make open-minded jurors.
Don't see why it's so hard to believe that people have never heard of Hernandez. I know lots of people who don't care about sports and local news. They get their news from the New York Times or national news broadcasts, and even then they focus only on reading about things that affect them directly. The way Facebook works they'd likely never hear about news they don't care about. The Hernandez case seems like a tabloid crime (i.e. a crime that wouldn't be that newsworthy except that it involves a celebrity), and that kind of news gets filtered right out.
I know about AH because I follow sports.
I have no knowledge of the Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias cases, other than they both allegedly killed someone. I couldn't pick either of them out of a lineup and know zero about the who/what/where of their cases. And I follow the news fairly closely. So I have no doubt that I could be a juror in those cases, despite their notoriety.
Since AH's case gets less press than those, I have no trouble believing that some people (many?) know little or nothing about it.
I have no knowledge of the Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias cases, other than they both allegedly killed someone. I couldn't pick either of them out of a lineup and know zero about the who/what/where of their cases. And I follow the news fairly closely. So I have no doubt that I could be a juror in those cases, despite their notoriety.
Since AH's case gets less press than those, I have no trouble believing that some people (many?) know little or nothing about it.
Let's see if today is the day we have some news.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/aaron-hernandez-jury-resume-deliberations-5th-day-050158619--nfl.html
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/aaron-hernandez-jury-resume-deliberations-5th-day-050158619--nfl.html
I wonder if AH can get conjucal visits during breaks?
Wild About Trial @WildAboutTrial
There will be court security for jurors as they smoke outside. It wouldn't appear they are terribly close to a verdict. #AaronHernandez -RK
Wild About Trial @WildAboutTrial
There will be court security for jurors as they smoke outside. It wouldn't appear they are terribly close to a verdict. #AaronHernandez -RK
I realize that those tweets are aimed at the larger audience, but they have about as much validity as axx proclaiming "the jury is hung and I love it!!!!!!!!!!"
OK then.
I'm comfortable in saying there's probably a split/holdout at this point; by the end of the day there would have been enough time (roughly 30 hours) to discuss and review any "problem" pieces of evidence. There's likely not a fundamental agreement at this point.
The split/holdout scale would go something like this (pro-prosecution on top):
1) single conscientious juror who wishes to review more information. ("I hear you, I just want to be sure.")
2) block of two or more jurors who want to review more information.
3) single "moderately reasonable" holdout juror - pro and con arguments swirl, and evidence is considered.
4) block of two or more "moderately reasonable" holdout jurors.
5) single "unreasonable" holdout juror. Nothing's changing my mind.
6) block of two or more "unreasonable" holdout jurors.
(Edit - the above can be "flipped" to indicate one "holdout" juror insisting on guilt in the face of the others voting NG, but I'm guessing/assuming the weight is with the prosecution at this point, for various reasons.)
Since there's been no appeal from the jury to the judge re: unreasonableness/splits/deadlocks, it's less likely we're in 5 or 6.
The split itself could be over:
1) M1 (premeditation) or M2 or IM
1a) Is this applicable under joint venture?
2) various gun charges
2a) Is this applicable under joint venture?
3) an overall NG based on the investigation/prosecution
We've had two questions about gun possession issues, but they were early on.
I'm guessing that they've sussed out the gun charges as a "floor" (either G or NG); I figure if they found him guilty of M1, they wouldn't spend 8 more hours debating a gun possession charge. With than in mind, I'd say the jury is probably debating M1 or M2 - was there premeditation/cruelty or not? There's probably also a debate over whether JV captures AH. Probably both. Was there enough premeditation shown for JV/M1 - enough to clear the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold?
I'm guessing if the jury had a clear understanding of how the evidence relates to JV, 20 hours (with several nights to sleep on things) would be enough to figure out if AH participated. At that point, the ID of the shooter does not really matter. If they're trying to figure out whether AH was the actual shooter (i.e., JV does not apply), again, 20 hours should be enough to figure out whether the evidence shows AH pulled the trigger. In retrospect, the prosecution should have layered in a better argument, hewing closer to the jury instructions re: premeditation and joint venture. Hammering the *import* of smoothies by the pool should also have been made explicit via the instructions. (That puts me back on my "structure" hobby horse - all the good points McCauley raised should have been pointed out as examples of [insert actual language from instructions].)
Of course, the jury could be going on about some murky thing we can't guess at. It'll be fascinating to hear if any of them choose to speak about the deliberation process.
***
Whatever the verdict, there's sometimes a rush to lionize/demonize the attorneys from one side or the other. In reality, our limited opinion of the attorneys should be formed now. We missed the vior dire (arguably the most crucial aspect of a trial), so we're missing key info as to how the "pitch/style" of each side interacted with who they chose and how the jury was educated before the trial began. We're also going to miss the actual deliberation, so we can't really know how the trial strategy and closing arguments reverberated with the jury. We may get some post deliberation reporting from the jury members themselves that can shed light on this, but who knows what arguments were adopted by individual jurors - and how those ideas/arguments/jurors interacted with each other during deliberations? Or did one side or another "get lucky" with a particular juror or argument? Post hoc ergo propter hoc applies.
I'm comfortable in saying there's probably a split/holdout at this point; by the end of the day there would have been enough time (roughly 30 hours) to discuss and review any "problem" pieces of evidence. There's likely not a fundamental agreement at this point.
The split/holdout scale would go something like this (pro-prosecution on top):
1) single conscientious juror who wishes to review more information. ("I hear you, I just want to be sure.")
2) block of two or more jurors who want to review more information.
3) single "moderately reasonable" holdout juror - pro and con arguments swirl, and evidence is considered.
4) block of two or more "moderately reasonable" holdout jurors.
5) single "unreasonable" holdout juror. Nothing's changing my mind.
6) block of two or more "unreasonable" holdout jurors.
(Edit - the above can be "flipped" to indicate one "holdout" juror insisting on guilt in the face of the others voting NG, but I'm guessing/assuming the weight is with the prosecution at this point, for various reasons.)
Since there's been no appeal from the jury to the judge re: unreasonableness/splits/deadlocks, it's less likely we're in 5 or 6.
The split itself could be over:
1) M1 (premeditation) or M2 or IM
1a) Is this applicable under joint venture?
2) various gun charges
2a) Is this applicable under joint venture?
3) an overall NG based on the investigation/prosecution
We've had two questions about gun possession issues, but they were early on.
I'm guessing that they've sussed out the gun charges as a "floor" (either G or NG); I figure if they found him guilty of M1, they wouldn't spend 8 more hours debating a gun possession charge. With than in mind, I'd say the jury is probably debating M1 or M2 - was there premeditation/cruelty or not? There's probably also a debate over whether JV captures AH. Probably both. Was there enough premeditation shown for JV/M1 - enough to clear the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold?
I'm guessing if the jury had a clear understanding of how the evidence relates to JV, 20 hours (with several nights to sleep on things) would be enough to figure out if AH participated. At that point, the ID of the shooter does not really matter. If they're trying to figure out whether AH was the actual shooter (i.e., JV does not apply), again, 20 hours should be enough to figure out whether the evidence shows AH pulled the trigger. In retrospect, the prosecution should have layered in a better argument, hewing closer to the jury instructions re: premeditation and joint venture. Hammering the *import* of smoothies by the pool should also have been made explicit via the instructions. (That puts me back on my "structure" hobby horse - all the good points McCauley raised should have been pointed out as examples of [insert actual language from instructions].)
Of course, the jury could be going on about some murky thing we can't guess at. It'll be fascinating to hear if any of them choose to speak about the deliberation process.
***
Whatever the verdict, there's sometimes a rush to lionize/demonize the attorneys from one side or the other. In reality, our limited opinion of the attorneys should be formed now. We missed the vior dire (arguably the most crucial aspect of a trial), so we're missing key info as to how the "pitch/style" of each side interacted with who they chose and how the jury was educated before the trial began. We're also going to miss the actual deliberation, so we can't really know how the trial strategy and closing arguments reverberated with the jury. We may get some post deliberation reporting from the jury members themselves that can shed light on this, but who knows what arguments were adopted by individual jurors - and how those ideas/arguments/jurors interacted with each other during deliberations? Or did one side or another "get lucky" with a particular juror or argument? Post hoc ergo propter hoc applies.
Yeah besides following here (which is the most informative place I catch up) I've been checking a few writer's twitter now and then when I couldn't watch, with McCann being one. Fraga has been great as others have said but McCann always seems to jump to the most dramatic conclusions. When the jurors were being questioned a few weeks ago he immediately started tweeting about a mistrial without just figuring out what it could be about. It turned out to be basically nothing.
allstonite said:
That was really what I was getting at. For whatever reason, this guy seems to have concluded that a mistrial is inevitable and so he's guiding the narrative to justify that view.
The could certainly have a split, but we don't know if it's serious or something that can be resolved with further deliberation. It could also be that they are going over the key evidence in a lot of detail. It's also important to remember that they haven't had a lot of concentrated hours of deliberation, as at least three days have been limited to just two or three actual hours of deliberation.
Pretending to be able to read tea leaves at this point is a fools errand.
RR... completely theoretical question: If there is a hung jury, and case is re-tried, what happens if the second case results in another hung jury? Can the process repeat over and over in theory? Or would prosecution likely stop if this occurred twice. At what point are the defendant's rights being onerously trampled over? If they were forced to stay in jail for months/years as repeated trials occurred, wouldn't that be an issue?
I think the biggest thing is for them to suss out premeditation with the JV.
To me the evidence presented shows clearly that:
1) AH was at the scene
2) OL was killed at the scene
3) AH orchestrated the meeting between the 4 parties
The evidence also shows clearly but I can see some others having issues:
4) OL was murdered (i.e. it wasn't some stupid mistake)
The evidence is a little murky on:
5) AH wanted OL dead
6) AH pulled the trigger.
Now, on 5, I think the fact that OL is dead goes with the rest of the evidence to make that clear as well, but I understand if people don't think the state cleared reasonable doubt on it.
So then you get into all the of JV questions. Is it enough that AH knew OL would probably get murdered and did nothing to stop it? Or does he have to be the mastermind? Things like that.
To me the evidence presented shows clearly that:
1) AH was at the scene
2) OL was killed at the scene
3) AH orchestrated the meeting between the 4 parties
The evidence also shows clearly but I can see some others having issues:
4) OL was murdered (i.e. it wasn't some stupid mistake)
The evidence is a little murky on:
5) AH wanted OL dead
6) AH pulled the trigger.
Now, on 5, I think the fact that OL is dead goes with the rest of the evidence to make that clear as well, but I understand if people don't think the state cleared reasonable doubt on it.
So then you get into all the of JV questions. Is it enough that AH knew OL would probably get murdered and did nothing to stop it? Or does he have to be the mastermind? Things like that.
I'm still unclear on how premeditation/M1 relates to JV. Suppose the jury believes that AH was there and drove everyone out to the abandoned lot and helped them cover it up and all sorts of other things, and the jury also believes that one of O/W was the killer. The jury believes that AH and O/W maybe had different intentions about why they were driving out to the abandoned lot. Maybe AH thought they were just going out there to talk some shit into OL, or just going out there to scare him, but one of O/W actually pulls the trigger. What does JV mean in that situation?
Sorry for asking dumb questions. It's a concept I'm not sure I've fully gotten my head around yet.
Sorry for asking dumb questions. It's a concept I'm not sure I've fully gotten my head around yet.
The Big Red Kahuna said:
Yep. Turtles all the way down.
I'd expect the state would try this one as often as necessary. There's no real trampling of rights involved - custody can always be revisited by the judge. (Also, there are some kinds of mistrials that would effectively "end" the state's ability to bring the charges again.)
The "good" news for AH is that the subsequent trials can usually happen more swiftly than the first - no need for a 2 year delay.
Some small nits:smastroyin said:
There is no legitimate dispute that OL was murdered - the final two shots came as he was lying on the ground, and were in close proximity.
The jury was instructed that knowing OL was going to be murdered but doing nothing is not enough to convict - he had no requirement to stop it. He does, however, have to be part of the venture - he has to help in the coordination in some substantial, meaningful way. In the words of conspiracy, he has to be an active participant, not a mere bystander. He does not have to be the mastermind -- any of the three (or anyone else) could have masterminded it.
However, his post murder actions may be used to show that he was a part of the venture, too - covering it up is evidence of the existence of the venture to commit the murder.
smastroyin said:
To me, there are a couple of other things which seem relevant.
3.1) AH was in general the leader of this particular group, not a fringe friend of somebody.
3.2) AH was not upset after the fact with OL being killed, nor did he shun the people who were with him that night.
I can think of three issues that would be somewhat puzzling to me as a juror, all of which I think I'd get over and find guilty on M1, but which I could see taking a bunch of time in the deliberations.
- If several of us have a different reconstruction of what happened that night, and in all of those reconstructions AH would be guilty of M1, but for different reasons (JV, pulled the trigger, told his friend to pull the trigger, wanted to scare him but gun went off accidentally/felony murder, etc.), does the number of different reconstructions mean that in some constructive sense we have reasonable doubt? [Answer: we have reasonable doubt as to any particular scenario, but not that AH is guilty. But I could see that being a confusing concept, and here's where the lack of a clear motive hurts the prosecution.]
- Joint venture, and a sense that whatever the law says, not feeling that there should be equal culpability; some people essentially wanting a jury nullification style reduction to M2 if they're not convinced AH actually pulled the trigger. [This wouldn't be a blocker for me on a jury, but then I also believe that AH was proven to have taken part in planning the crime, so it's less of an issue.]
- From the facts in evidence, we're being asked to convict AH and take away the rest of his life in a case that contained neither a motive nor a murder weapon/other compelling physical evidence. Everything else about the case is as strong as possible, but there's a sense that it's a weaker case than I would have hoped for as a juror. [The question, then, is whether somehow a weak case for M1 should get it knocked down to M2, which doesn't seem to have any legal basis but might be a tempting compromise for a jury that is uncomfortable with these aspects.]
I think I'd be able to get past all three of these and find guilty on M1, but I'd expect all three to come up in deliberations and to debate them, and could easily see a jury going down one of these paths instead.
Jnai said:
To address both you and Samstroyin, I don't believe JV would apply if AH had no idea what was going to happen, and didn't do anything to further the outcome.
JV basically captures "co-conspirators" - people who embark on the same criminal enterprise together. The killer, the lookout, the getaway driver, the guy running the safe house who will get rid of the gun, etc. But basically a joint venturer needs to be "in" the crime, while the process of the crime is happening, but before it's completed. (This is just a rough working explanation.)
This is an earlier post on JV: http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/87547-aaron-hernandez-trial-odin-lloyd/page-12#entry5957259
Here's the model instruction: http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/courts-and-judges/courts/district-court/jury-instructions-criminal/4200-aiding-or-abetting.pdf
The state is kind of stuck with:
1) "AH was in it all along." I think the state has an excellent case that AH knowingly participated - planning, picking up OL, driving OL to an industrial site, cleaning up afterward. The inference of AH's post-shooting activities reflect that he knew what was going to happen. The state can also show that if AH wasn't the actual shooter, AH helped W/O escape by driving them from the scene to his house, lying about the damage to the car, renting them a second car, and instructing his GF and aunt to send them money/bus tickets. This is inferential/circumstantial, but it's none-the-less very strong.
2) "AH joined in the crime while it was happening." Basically the above, but that AH agreed to help the escape. It's sort of what you'd normally think of as "accessory after the fact." This is a much weaker form and the jury might not buy it, given the language of the instructions. It depends on if the jury thinks the crime was "over" when the shots rang out, or if the crime "continued" through the escape from the scene.
***
FWIW - the "just driving out there to scare him" option isn't on the table. There are no facts to support it and no instruction for felony murder or transferred intent. Someone, at some point, made a deliberate choice to kill OL by putting multiple bullets into him. The question is only whether the other two were involved and how.
Excellent post - nice breakdown on how a jury might compromise.CSteinhardt said:
Just wanted to point out that the lack of a clear explanation of this concept during close is what may hurt the prosecution. The jury does not have to unanimously agree on the particular facts of what happened - just on guilt.
I really must downgrade my assessment of the prosecution's close. I think I was taken by its good points so much that I overlooked him failing to dot "i"s and cross "t"s.
Joshv02 said:
Right, but murder means premeditated and/or cruel. I could see an argument that using all 6 shots takes us from killed to murdered, but I think a jury might have some deliberation about it.
Wait, really?! Orchestrating the meet and being the one actually driving out the the spot would seem to go beyond passively not stopping it in my mind. Any way you could expand on that because it's something I hadn't heard previously.Joshv02 said:
Edit: oh and, like, providing the guns too.
I agree as a general rule, but two of them were while he was on the ground and someone was standing over him. That's pretty clearly intent. You don't shoot at someone from above while they are laying down without intended to put bullets into them.smastroyin said:
The prior ones take more thought and I could see that someone may say "what if they just wanted to scare him and missed?" (though, it gets complicated when marrying intent and JV there). But, the last two make it 100% clear that someone intended to murder OL.
Rovin Romine said:
Right, but it belies belief that they would drive to that place with no reason. So if scaring him is off the table, you have someone in the car thinking murder, and that someone convinced AH to drive to that lot. And that someone was still buddies with AH the next day.
I understand that reasonable doubt has to be taken seriously, but as you've said many times - reasonable doubt. Not "I can concoct a Jack Bauer scenario in my head where this is a set-up" (which I imagine is something I would have said 18 times by now if I were in the jury room)
smastroyin said:
I think my instinct to lead with the dead body in a prosecution's close was correct. You begin with the death (a murder) then work backward to show it was inevitable that AH was involved under JV - that AHs actions couldn't be anything other than those of a mastermind or a willing accomplice.
smastroyin said:
I was pointing out that there's no instruction for felony murder. WE know the theory - the jury does not. (I'm not even sure if an instruction on transferred intent was read.)
What if the jury thinks AH wanted to scare him but W/O took it too far? Without proper charges/jury instructions, they might acquit based on the limited instructions they have before them. The jury may think the state has to positively proves BRD that AH *intended* to kill OL when they stopped or that the state has to possibly prove BRD that AH/W/O had an oral agreement someone would kill OL when they stopped. If a jury member focuses on whether there's proof BRD for those two narrow things in isolation (no inferences), I could see a hung jury. Which'd be even more likely if the jury is under the impression they all have to unanimously agree on what all the facts are.
It's sort of a zoom in, zoom out issue, with zooming in (lack of direct proof of an intent to murder) favoring the defense, and zooming out (lack of any other explanations) favoring the prosecution.
***
Edit - to say it slightly differently, I think "intent" comes in two flavors here.
1 is the intent to deliberately murder by pulling the trigger the final two times. That should be a given but maybe wasn't made explicit by the prosecution. "Whoever killed OL is guilty of M1." State has decent evidence that AH was the shooter, but its not ironclad.
2 is AH's intent to participate in a joint venture to deliberately murder, prior to the murder itself. I think this is what most people think about when they toss about the idea of "motive," as opposed to "intent" to pull the trigger the final two times. This should also have been fleshed out in the close and is what I was addressing above.
Since there may not be PBRD that AH personally did #1, and there may not be PBRD that AH did #2, the state may have a real problem, depending on the instructions.
One intentional shot is enough for murder, without cruelty or premeditation. Those are the kickers--one of them is needed to get to murder one.smastroyin said:
It's been a long expensive trial and I assume Garsh will instruct the jury on the agreement issues (and perhaps clarification on murder) and let them continue deliberation if they are hung right now. Will be interesting to see.
I think JV is very confusing and not easily explicable to a layperson, and in this case it could significantly change the level of agreement that might exist in the jury. If you think AH pulled the trigger, this is a much easier case than if you think AH didn't pull the trigger, and I could see having an argument about that in a jury room, even if the issue of pulling the trigger is fundamentally meaningless because both would be M1 under JV.
Possibly. I don't often formulate the prosecution's arguments though, so there may be more streamlined explanations out there.Jnai said:
How about this - JV means "you're in on it" and "you help it happen in some way, any way, no matter how small." It's like going into business with a partner to do a crime - you don't have to be "equal partners" but you're still 100% liable for whatever your partner does.
smastroyin said:
Here is MA's model "try harder" jury instruction. It's rather nice compared to others I have seen. Usually it's only read when the jury says they're deadlocked. It would be unusual (IMO) for a judge to interrupt deliberations to read it to the jury in sort of a "hurry up" capacity.
http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/courts-and-judges/courts/district-court/jury-instructions-criminal/2460-when-jurors-cannot-agree.pdf
Yeah, I said "right now" but meant if they came back saying they couldn't get to an agreement.
smastroyin said:
Gotcha - I do a lot of "talking past the original post" in the thread, mostly for lurkers.
This may well be exactly what is going on. It's pretty easy to get to reasonable doubt on the narrow question of whether AH pulled the trigger; there isn't really any evidence that firmly excludes one of O/W as the shooter unless I totally missed something. So it's probably either JV or nothing (apart from the non-homicide charges).Jnai said:
I think my law school crim class spent a week or two working through JV liability, versus one day each for murder one and murder two. Granted that not every wrinkle is applicable here, but JV is not a simple concept.
Rovin Romine said:
Question about the jury instructions. On the domestic violence case I was on, the prosecutor presented multiple charges, from most severe to least. The jury instructions specifically said that if we acquitted on the most severe charge, then we were to consider the second most severe; if we acquitted on the second most severe, then we were to move on to the next one, etc. It was clear that we could probably convict on the least severe of the charges, but there were jurors who refused to acquit on the most severe. So the jury hung because we couldn't get past that first charge - specifically because the instructions said we had to decide on that before moving to the others. Is that the case here? Is that a typical problem where they could all vote to convict on lesser charges but can't get past the most serious?
In general it is possible for a jury to convict on a lesser charge and hang on a greater charge (provided there are no instructions like what your judge did). I would think most judges would not want to structure deliberations in a way that hanging on the first charge considered prevents any consideration of other charges. Sometimes the prosecution is happy with the conviction on the lesser offense, which makes the greater charge moot. Other times, it is a catalyst for pleading out the unresolved issues (not that those situations are likely here). But even here, it would simplify any eventual retrial to have some charges taken care of and off the table.kieckeredinthehead said:
So if AH ends up in prison, there is another former NFL player in California who needs a new cellmate...
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12685376/lawrence-phillips-former-nfl-running-back-suspected-killing-prison-cellmate
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12685376/lawrence-phillips-former-nfl-running-back-suspected-killing-prison-cellmate
Rovin Romine said:
On one level that sounds correct - "We have a body...how did that happen?" But in this case, the murder itself is the middle point of the story. The post murder activities of Hernandez & crew were quite damning, but how do you tell that story out of the sequence? Start at the murder, work backwards, but also fit in those post murder activities? I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but a linear close to make sense of that vast pile of evidence - from the sparking night at Rumor to the post-murder chest bumps between the "scared kid" and his confederates - well, you can see why the prosecution would want to tie it all together in a neat start-to-finish sequence.
Rovin Romine said:
I'm not saying I disagree with the concept, I just think it's a strange concept, because it means that there's a lot of possibly conflicting stories that would lead to guilty. Maybe this is entirely the wrong thing to do, but if I was leading a jury discussion I feel like the first thing I'd want to do is try to establish what happened to the best of my ability.
With this JV crime, we're basically being told that the most proximal events to the killing are not particularly critical because AH is guilty no matter who pulls the trigger so long as AH assisted the entire operation in some way.
I guess it's a bit like, three guys go in and hold up a bank and rob the bank, it's not critical exactly which one of them points the weapons at the tellers, which one of them steals the money, and which one of them cracks the safe. Maybe with that analogy, it's not so tricky, and I'm just slow. =)
- Status