Aaron Hernandez Trial (Odin Lloyd)

[Rovin Romine]

 
If there is one golden ticket out of a conviction for Hernandez, though, it's the hope that the jury demands a motive.
 
So the prosecution flails about, trying to show a rift between Hernandez and Lloyd. That includes putting Nicholas on the stand all because he claimed he briefly saw Hernandez glaring at Lloyd inside a nightclub in the early morning hours of June 15, 2013.
Hernandez, Nicholas claimed, "seemed upset" and was "angry about something."
What that "something" was, Nicholas had no idea. He claims Hernandez stormed out of the club, although video surveillance doesn't really suggest that.

 
A sort of general post regarding motive.
 
At the end of the trial, the jury will be instructed by the judge as to what they can/can't consider, the burden of proof, what "reasonable doubt" is, etc.  The judge will also read the standard (or agreed upon) jury instructions for each particular offense to the jury, either before or after closing arguments.  Either way, the attorneys should be able to use the actual language of the jury instructions to argue the evidence.  Meaning they'll quote the definition of malice (for example) from the jury instruction, tell the jury they're going to get that instruction with that language, and explain how the evidence shows "malice."  Many attorneys will use a projection or blow up of the instruction to check off points.
 
There's an upthread link to the general jury instructions for MA.  Here's a link to the applicable instructions for murder (and other species of unlawful killings) http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/docs/model-jury-instructions-homicide.pdf
 
Joint Venture is on page 14.   Murder is further down.  One won't find any mention of "motive" in the jury instructions.  However, "intent" is required to be proven.  The chestnut is that mere presence at a crime or mere knowledge that a crime occurred isn't enough to convict, and so people sometimes believe that "intent" is something that the prosecution needs to produce a smoking gun for - an email or a text saying "I'm going to kill that guy."  In reality:
 

 
You are permitted, but not required, to infer the defendant's mental state or intent from his knowledge of the circumstances or any subsequent participation in the crime.29 The inferences you draw must be reasonable, and you may rely on your experience and common sense in determining the defendant's knowledge and intent.30

  
That's in relation to joint venture, but the idea is applied more broadly (consciousness of guilt/general inference instructions).   In short, the prosecution does not have to show "why" AH killed OL, merely that the facts show (beyond a reasonable doubt) that AH participated in the killing of OL - and that the jury can infer AH's intent to kill OL from AH's actions in killing OL.  It's sort of the snake eating its own tail, but it does work on an emotional level for many jurors. 
 
So, although they're not the same thing, in some senses, "intent" is pretty much a proxy for "motive" - meaning, should any evidence show AH planned, did, or covered up the crime, the jury will feel more free to disregard the question of "why."   It's sort of a form of burden shifting - in the sense that "lack of intent" becomes something that the defense must almost affirmatively raise.  If the state's factual case is weak, there's no need to emphasize lack of intent.  If the state's factual case is strong, "intent" can become something of an afterthought for the jury (in the absence of a self-defense theory).
 
(As an aside, one can have motive but no intent to commit a crime, or intent to commit a crime and no motive.)
 
***
This also implicates the whole issue of AH's "character" discussed up thread - the more the defense moves towards "they were friends, so, lack of motive," the more dangerous it becomes for them. 

 

[Rovin Romine]

I agree that it sounds crazy, but its necessary for the defense to make those points, not to prove its an airgun, but to prove that its a stretch for the witness to identify exactly what it is. And getting the witness to admit it "could" be something else goes a long way to bolstering the defenses closing argument. "Their own witness admitted it could be something else..."
 
Having said that, I'm admittedly not following the trial that close. But you can't let that opinion sit in evidence without challenging the witness, even if the only way you've got to do that sounds independently crazy. You need to be able to close, which will be weeks and weeks from now and this day will rest in the back of jurors' minds by then, that "their" expert admitted it "could" be something else. That's the point they have to make on cross of this witness.

 
Again, sort of a general post, picking of the threads of this discussion, rather than specifically responding to you.
 
I agree with the bolded, but it comes down to style/context.  You could cross with something like:
 
"So you testified that this is a glock .45?"
 
"So is your testimony the ONLY possibility?"
 (Or skip this.   "No" is bad for the defense,  but if so, you go down the whole "You can't say for certain/just an opinion, etc."but then you rope him into admitting that he did testify it was a glock .45)
 
(If yes/skipped/roped in)
"Remarkable - and you weren't there, right?"
"No one told you what conclusion to reach?"
"No psychic powers?"
"So, you're just an expert looking at a picture."
"That's an amazing skill - how often have you testified that just by looking at a grainy picture you can ID the gun and the caliber?"
"What, people don't call you all the time to ID guns from convenience store heists?"
"Fair and impartial"
"Well, you don't prejudge, right?"
"Oh, sorry,  I mean you want independent accurate assessments of the facts in front of you - you don't want to color or bias your conclusions."
"So like any good scientist, or fair jury, you don't rush to judgment."
"Not your role to draw conclusions - just your role to look a picture and say what it is."
"Here, you say it's X"
"That's pretty remarkable.  A picture just falls from the air onto your desk and you can say "It's a glock 45."
"Here's a picture - is it a glock 45?"
"Well, actually it's an airsoft gun."
"Here's another - is it a glock 45?"
"Well actually, it's a glock 22"
"Here's another grainy photo - you want to tell me what this is?"
 (insert optional piece about optical illusions, the face on mars, seeing someone and thinking they're a friend but then realizing they're a stranger)
"So you just can't look and know from the picture itself."  (follow up whatever floundering, staying on the looking/knowing point, not the likelihood of airsoft)
"So I guess some other factors beyond your just looking may have colored your testimony in this case."
"Who called you about the case" (police)
"You knew who AH was/this was the AH investigation/there was already press coverage/you read about it."
"You're getting paid for this/Glock gets free advertising/etc."
"And you thought you'd come in here and just magically say you know, from a grainy picture, what this gun is."
"You were comfortable telling the jury, in this important case, that your opinion was something so refined and accurate, that they needed it to inform their thinking on the issue."
"Oh, right, how much are you being paid again?"
 
Blah blah blah.  That's off the top of my head and not well plotted - I don't know if Sultan *could* have done that sort of cross (or parts of it, which are objectionable if the prosecution is quick enough), given MA law/his resources, but the point is you can structure the cross to hammer the method/suggest the import of the facts you're eliciting.  Sultan seems to have wanted to drag the *fact* that some airsoft guns look like Glocks out of the witness.   It's all about context.
 
All my usual caveats apply.  

 

[ManhattanRedSox]

I don't think I'd like arguing/debating with you.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I don't think I'd like arguing/debating with you.

 
Snort.  I've got multiple speeds.   Even in trial.  
 
Bottom line is that it's the witnesses (relative) bullshit that creates strong crosses.  A reasonable expert with well grounded opinions who respectfully answers whatever you ask, isn't partisan, and does not over reach won't give an opposing attorney a lot (if anything) to work with.  Which is really as it should be. 

 

[hittery]

Even though motive is not required, and jurors are carefully instructed as to that very point, jurors are human beings, and the absence of a motive (especially a glaring one) will cause many of them to place more emphasis on issues of doubt than they would otherwise. People like motives; many need them. That's why the defense is emphasizing the lack of motive here, and why the prosecution is trying to establish a motive. So even though technically you should not acquit someone because of lack motive, it very well can (and does) happen.

 

[hittery]

I think the prosecution might take a hit from putting the woman on today that danced with Aaron two nights before the murders. The video they were allowed to show was not helpful. Her testimony wasn't particularly helpful either. She came off to me like someone who was dissed by AH at the club and is now seeking her 15 minutes of fame and a little payback by saying he turned aggressive later in the night. In an effort to pile on witnesses in this case, the state is really running the danger of one or more of them back-firing.

Also, it looks like there is some kind of juror issue going on this afternoon.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I think the prosecution might take a hit from putting the woman on today that danced with Aaron two nights before the murders. The video they were allowed to show was not helpful. Her testimony wasn't particularly helpful either. She came off to me like someone who was dissed by AH at the club and is now seeking her 15 minutes of fame and a little payback by saying he turned aggressive later in the night. In an effort to pile on witnesses in this case, the state is really running the danger of one or more of them back-firing.

Also, it looks like there is some kind of juror issue going on this afternoon.

 
I listened to some of this today - but am mostly relying on the twitter feed.  I'm having trouble with the relevance of this woman's testimony.  Why is she even testifying?  It's only legally relevant as a sort of quasi-character/quasi-prior bad act testimony - that AH was aggressive at some two days prior to the murder.  I'm not sure why that would be allowed.   
 
But then there's been a lot of "acting normally" v. "not acting normally" and "demeanor" type stuff thus far.  While demeanor relevant leading up to the murder or just after the murder to suggest mental attitude, I'm not sure AH's dancing patterns two days before are relevant.  Maybe there's a linkup to drug usage the prosecution will be introducing?  
 
Maybe the defense knows for sure she'd be called as a rebuttal witness later (for some point they intend to raise) and aren't objecting now because it could be kind of confusing for the jury to get this info "out of sequence."  Or maybe they just think the prosecution is diluting their case with crappy witnesses?
 
But is it a true ding for the prosecution?  Her testimony does help sink the "AH as good guy/married man" argument and suggests AH could have been living a double life.   

 

[mauf]

I assume there was a formal ruling before the trial that the other murder charges AH is facing can't be introduced in any way, shape or form.
 
I wonder if arguing "no motive" would open the door for the prosecution to introduce those other charges, as (I think) AH's presumed motive was to keep Lloyd from snitching.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Even though motive is not required, and jurors are carefully instructed as to that very point, jurors are human beings, and the absence of a motive (especially a glaring one) will cause many of them to place more emphasis on issues of doubt than they would otherwise. People like motives; many need them. That's why the defense is emphasizing the lack of motive here, and why the prosecution is trying to establish a motive. So even though technically you should not acquit someone because of lack motive, it very well can (and does) happen.

 
I hear you on this.  I don't think we particularly disagree in the abstract, either on the strategy for raising lack of motive, or the effect it might have.  Part of the intent of my earlier post was to address "motive" in general - people will often think it's something that has to be proven.   (Which is a totally reasonable assumption, especially if one has a literary/media based view of criminal law.)
 
I agree that a lack of motive can enhance doubts - but as a practical matter, I still view it as more of a mild intensifier, intrinsically intertwined with the other basic facts of the case.  If the state's case is otherwise strong (means, opportunity, proof of the commission of the crime), a lack of motive on its own is a hard sell for the defense.  If the state's case is weak (say, multiple suspects, ambiguous evidence, leads not followed up on) then lack of motive is another finger on the scale, but perhaps an unneeded one, or maybe it's best viewed something of a symbolic tying together of the weakness of the state's case. 

 

[Rovin Romine]

I assume there was a formal ruling before the trial that the other murder charges AH is facing can't be introduced in any way, shape or form.
 
I wonder if arguing "no motive" would open the door for the prosecution to introduce those other charges, as (I think) AH's presumed motive was to keep Lloyd from snitching.

 
Glad to have you back in our virtual bubble.  Yes, no mention of the other charges/alleged bad acts is currently allowed.  
 
We touched on the "no motive" thing upthread.  I suspect the prosecution does not have a viable way to introduce the "Lloyd might have snitched" theory.  The co-defendants would be the logical candidates for that.  But one is so unreliable the prosecution apparently does not want to call him.  The other wants a separate trial and can't be compelled to testify. 
 
Odd thought - assuming AH was either convicted or acquitted (and appeals were final, so that jeopardy attached), could AH be compelled to testify under oath regarding the OL murder?  Say, for use in the trial against Wallace?  Or do AH's other open cases somehow implicate his 5th amendment rights?  Or is there a double jeopardy/5th issue I'm not remembering for this kind of situation? 

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

 
Glad to have you back in our virtual bubble.  Yes, no mention of the other charges/alleged bad acts is currently allowed.  
 
We touched on the "no motive" thing upthread.  I suspect the prosecution does not have a viable way to introduce the "Lloyd might have snitched" theory.  The co-defendants would be the logical candidates for that.  But one is so unreliable the prosecution apparently does not want to call him.  The other wants a separate trial and can't be compelled to testify. 
 
Odd thought - assuming AH was either convicted or acquitted (and appeals were final, so that jeopardy attached), could AH be compelled to testify under oath regarding the OL murder?  Say, for use in the trial against Wallace?  Or do AH's other open cases somehow implicate his 5th amendment rights?  Or is there a double jeopardy/5th issue I'm not remembering for this kind of situation? 

Without a grant of immunity, I think he can still plead the 5th as long as his lawyer can articulate a plausible rationale under which the testimony could expose him to criminal liability, whether for the other cases or for something in connection with OL that would not be barred by double jeopardy (which depends on exactly what the current charges are).

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

 
Glad to have you back in our virtual bubble.  Yes, no mention of the other charges/alleged bad acts is currently allowed.  
 
We touched on the "no motive" thing upthread.  I suspect the prosecution does not have a viable way to introduce the "Lloyd might have snitched" theory.  The co-defendants would be the logical candidates for that.  But one is so unreliable the prosecution apparently does not want to call him.  The other wants a separate trial and can't be compelled to testify. 
 
Odd thought - assuming AH was either convicted or acquitted (and appeals were final, so that jeopardy attached), could AH be compelled to testify under oath regarding the OL murder?  Say, for use in the trial against Wallace?  Or do AH's other open cases somehow implicate his 5th amendment rights?  Or is there a double jeopardy/5th issue I'm not remembering for this kind of situation? 

 
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 67 (1906) seems to indicate that a pardon or the clear running of the statute of limitations precludes assertion of the right against self-incrimination.  Theoretically, this principle seems like it should apply to double jeopardy, but especially with serious crimes involving multiple parties I would think the various wrinkles and exceptions to double jeopardy -- Pinkerton conspiracy liability for example? -- would probably make it so that unless the prosecution is will to grant immunity, the defendant doesn't need to take a risk if double jeopardy law is at all ambiguous.

 

[Rovin Romine]

A quick recap of the past couple of days:
 
Mon - Florida man buys guns, puts them in a car that AH buys, and the car is shipped from FL to MA. 
 
Today begins with AH family friends on the stand.  AH started using a burner phone with a FL address the day after the shooting. 
 
Mercado (sister of Tanya, AH's aunt/mother figure who refused to testify to the grand jury and was held in contempt) is testifying.  She has immunity.  If you want to see a witness weaseling on the stand, this is a great example.  
 

 

[Rovin Romine]

Mercado is really worth watching.  She's a state witness called under immunity.  
 
She testified to the grand jury (which is the body that investigates whether a crime like murder should be charged), and that testimony was under oath.  
 
She's now basically saying that she can't really testify to anything she said earlier.  Or can't recall.  Or that she just read off whatever the prosecutor gave her at the grand jury proceedings.  But she can remember AH said he was innocent, etc.   She's claiming a poor memory, PTSD, depression, anxiety, being on meds, failure to review her previous testimony, etc.  To me it comes off as 100% evasive, but then I'm a bit cynical about this sort of thing.
 
Hard to gauge what the jury will think of this - but the prosector is adopting a good (IMO) approach in that he's letting her outrageousness play itself out in front of the jury for what it is.  Since her sister Tanya was given immunity and refused to testify to the grand jury (and the jury knows about that now), I think this is excellent for the prosecution, so long as they don't lose their cool.  No one likes the state trying to railroad a mentally fragile witness. 
 
Personally, I think the jury would be pretty put off by the idea that Tanya knew something incriminating, was given immunity and refused to speak about it, and that Mercado was given immunity but is clearly doing everything she can not to be truthful/straightforward/honest.  I imagine one or more jurors might think that AH confessed to Tanya.  Now Tanya's sister is being completely evasive.
 
Also, I don't know how nefarious these things she's failing to remember are.  It's totally aboveboard for someone to pay someon-else's canteen account (allowing for an incarcerated person's discretionary spending at the canteen or commissary in a jail or prison).   Yeah, it could look like a bribe or hush money, but $50 for a relative's shampoo and smokes isn't going to raise a lot of eyebrows.  Having the witness stonewall about that canteen account is much more effective for the prosecution; it raises the shadiness quotient, or perhaps even creates one.  The state seems frustrated, but if I were in their shoes I'd be very very happy with this.  
 
It's a good preview for Shayanna.  
 
***
The basic tools an attorney has in this situation are "refreshing of memory/refreshing of recollection" and "impeachment."  
 
To refresh recollection you show the witness pretty much anything that they review on the stand.  Photos, journals, police reports, etc.  If that review causes the witness's memory to be refreshed ("Yeah, it was Thursday at 6pm") they can then testify *based on their memory.*  They cannot testify based off the thing that refreshed their recollection.  Meaning they cannot just read the report.  If they don't remember based on the prompt their shown, they can't testify. 
 
To impeach you confront the witness with something that they previously said or wrote about the matter at hand.  (There are a whole bunch of ways that plays out - too long to list here; for example, impeachment usually has be on an important fact (a material, not collateral issue), may or may not be offered as a contradictory truth to the jury (upthread), and can even be done through an omission the witness made in prior testimony.)
 
State rules control what happens when a witness "can't remember." 
 
If a witness is completely obstructing, there's a contempt possibility, as well as having them declared hostile.  
 
 

 

[Rovin Romine]

The live feed for this is great.  It's a pretty commonplace way of dealing with a recalcitrant witness. 
 
The prosecutor is doing about a 7 out of 10 with this.  There are ways to do this without bogging down in small points. 
 
To paint with a broad brush, prosecutors are often thought to be weaker on cross examination.  They tend not to train for it and many can go months or years without a truly hostile cross.  Defense attorneys, on the other hand, deal mostly with crossing witnesses, and thus be somewhat weaker on direct (although, in fairness, direct, while a true skill, is not as hard to learn as cross techniques, which have to be flexible and applied in-the-moment).  This kind of situation, while technically direct, is much closer to cross - where you have to dig out information and make the witness look bad.
 
I can't quite figure out what there was to dig out of the witness, so I can't speculate as to the trial effectiveness of what the prosecutor did - meaning, regardless of style, the prosecutor may have gotten all the good points he could have reasonably done.
 
***
On cross, you can see the difference (how a hostile witness inverts the strategies).  The defense is asking open ended questions and the witness is oh-so-helpful without any memory issues.  They're going into character/background stuff (finally the state objected to relevance - overruled though.)
 
***
For anyone interested in the discussion upthread on direct v cross v hostile witnesses, this is an excellent example of how those dynamics play out.  

 

[hittery]

I'm so bummed I missed this!

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

I'm so bummed I missed this!

 
It's still going.

 

[DaughtersofDougMirabelli]

I'm so bummed I missed this!

 
Rovin's link in his first post gives you the ability to rewind and see stuff you missed. 

 

[Super Nomario]

Greg Bedard's recollections of covering Hernandez: http://mmqb.si.com/2015/03/25/aaron-hernandez-odin-lloyd-trial/
 
Some tid-bits:

 
At the scouting combine in February 2013, I had heard from a source close to Hernandez that he was flying in from Los Angeles to Indianapolis to meet with the Patriots and ask for a trade. Hernandez’s reason, the source said, was that he felt in danger from a gang back home in Bristol, Conn., that was making demands on him after he’d signed his new $40 million contract extension, and he wanted to distance himself from them.
...
... I looked out the front window of the bar and saw Hernandez urinating on a running taxi cab, with the driver yelling at him.
...
I remember him stating his desire to move to receiver full-time in the Patriots’ offense (something he had pleaded for with receivers coach Chad O’Shea, who probably didn’t take the request seriously).

 

[Van Everyman]

You left out the most interesting part:

I went outside, walked up to Hernandez and suggested he should probably use the restroom inside unless he wanted to get arrested. No response. Then I lightly touched his elbow to guide him back into the bar and said, “Aaron, come on. This is stupid.” At that point Hernandez whipped around, got in my face, unleashed a stream of expletives and concluded, “I’m not a child! You’re not my dad!”

I replied, “Well, you’re acting like a child right now. Fine, do what you want to do.” Then I went back inside and joined some friends at a table.

A while later, Hernandez came back inside, shot me a My bad glance and joined the conversation. I remember him stating his desire to move to receiver full-time in the Patriots’ offense (something he had pleaded for with receivers coach Chad O’Shea, who probably didn’t take the request seriously). Hernandez was back at the bar when it was time for me to call it a night. I shook his hand and said, “I heard there’s some stuff going on with you and your family. Hope you get the resolution you’re looking for. See you later.”

Most interesting because:

1) His dad's sudden death on the operating table was supposedly the point at which AH began to go astray.

2) This kind of outburst reminded me a whole lot of him telling Welker to fuck himself in the locker room his rookie year. I remember there was some debate as to whether stories like that (or Matt Light's comments about him) were real or colored by the fact that he had been arrested for murder. Seems pretty true now.

On another note, I still find the whole relationship between reporters and the people they cover to be mucked up. On one hand you have AH buying a round of drinks for Bedard. And a few seconds later, you have Bedard helping the guy out of a personal jam. And oh by the way, there's a whole story swirling around about the guy trying to flee gang members.

I get that this is how the media operates. But it def. explains why we shouldn't be terribly surprised when our favorite athletes turn out to possibly be angel dust-addicted triple murderers.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Today, per the tweets, was reserved for argument about certain things coming into evidence or not.  No jury, no testimony.   Mostly the question before the judge is whether certain recorded jailhouse conversations ought to be allowed into evidence before the jury.   This depends on MA law, particularly that regarding "joint ventures" (basically co-conspirators).  I didn't see anything damning on the twitter feed, but there might be enough to add likelihood to the jury finding a conspiracy of silence/destruction of evidence/hiding witnesses after the fact.
 
Also, one tweet says that Alexander Bradley, the FL shooting victim, will be voir dired by the judge to see if he can testify.  I thought information on the FL shooting was excluded by the judge.  That ruling is currently on appeal, as far as I know.  So perhaps bringing Bradley before the court is just an administrative thing? (If so, why waste time on it before a final ruling?) Or does Bradley have additional information he'll testify to?  (If so, there'd be no need for a voir dire.)  Or has the judge changed her mind?
 
BTW -"voir dire" is the process of selecting a jury by questioning them.  "voir dire" can also refer to the process of the attorneys questioning a potential witness (expert or not) in front of the judge, but not in front of the jury.  The judge can then weigh that testimony (or the expert credentials) against the appropriate legal standard to decide whether the jury should hear that witness's testimony.  Sometimes this is broadly called "proffering evidence/testimony" to the court, although a proffer, unlike a VD, can be made by the attorney to explain what a witness *would* say, if they were called.  

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

Today, per the tweets, was reserved for argument about certain things coming into evidence or not.  No jury, no testimony.   Mostly the question before the judge is whether certain recorded jailhouse conversations ought to be allowed into evidence before the jury.   This depends on MA law, particularly that regarding "joint ventures" (basically co-conspirators).  I didn't see anything damning on the twitter feed, but there might be enough to add likelihood to the jury finding a conspiracy of silence/destruction of evidence/hiding witnesses after the fact.
 
Also, one tweet says that Alexander Bradley, the FL shooting victim, will be voir dired by the judge to see if he can testify.  I thought information on the FL shooting was excluded by the judge.  That ruling is currently on appeal, as far as I know.  So perhaps bringing Bradley before the court is just an administrative thing? (If so, why waste time on it before a final ruling?) Or does Bradley have additional information he'll testify to?  (If so, there'd be no need for a voir dire.)  Or has the judge changed her mind?
 
BTW -"voir dire" is the process of selecting a jury by questioning them.  "voir dire" can also refer to the process of the attorneys questioning a potential witness (expert or not) in front of the judge, but not in front of the jury.  The judge can then weigh that testimony (or the expert credentials) against the appropriate legal standard to decide whether the jury should hear that witness's testimony.  Sometimes this is broadly called "proffering evidence/testimony" to the court, although a proffer, unlike a VD, can be made by the attorney to explain what a witness *would* say, if they were called.  

 
It's enlightening to read about such things in the context of a real trial. My current frame of reference for the jury questioning process is The Devil's Advocate, in which Keanu's charming Southern gentleman lawyer has the magic touch for picking the perfect jury. My (and most of the non-lawyer population's, I assume) frame of reference for the witness questioning voir dire is and ever will be My Cousin Vinny.
 
The very clear and informative commentary is highly appreciated, RR.

 

[OCST]

I wish RR had been my Evidence professor.
 
Judge allows recordings of AH jailhouse calls into evidence:
 
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12561404/aaron-hernandez-murder-trial-continues-thursday
 

 
FALL RIVER, Mass. -- The judge in the murder trial of former New England Patriots star Aaron Hernandez says jailhouse calls in which he discusses giving money to a cousin may be used as evidence.

Prosecutors say the promises of money were used to buy her silence after the 2013 killing of Odin Lloyd. Lloyd was dating the sister of Hernandez's fiancée.
Superior Court Judge Susan Garsh is also allowing a call in which Hernandez tells Tanya Singleton: "Don't say nothing." She says she won't.

 
RR/others: is the silver lining for the defense here that this might be a good issue on appeal?
 
Because it seems like it's getting worser and worser for AH.  No one dispositive piece of evidence, but a steady drip-drip-drip of stuff that makes the prosecution's case look stronger.

 

[Corsi]

FOX 25 News Boston ‏@fox25news  52s53 seconds ago
BREAKING: Fall River courthouse where the Aaron Hernandez trial is being held has been evacuated because of a bomb threat. Details in app.

 

[PeaceSignMoose]

God damn it, Corsi.
 
What even happens with a defendant like Hernandez when someone delivers a bomb threat?  Do they bring him back to Bristol County Jail until further notice?  I can't imagine that trial will be resumed today.

 

[ifmanis5]

Court pool feed is currently in bars, the judge said everyone out and they left the court room.

 

[PeaceSignMoose]

https://twitter.com/BfragaHN/status/581136708625965056

 

[OCST]

How long til defense claims that jurors are too spooked to work effectively, and moves for mistrial/change of venue?

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

About an hour would be my guess.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I wish RR had been my Evidence professor.
 
Judge allows recordings of AH jailhouse calls into evidence:
 
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12561404/aaron-hernandez-murder-trial-continues-thursday
 
 
RR/others: is the silver lining for the defense here that this might be a good issue on appeal?
 
Because it seems like it's getting worser and worser for AH.  No one dispositive piece of evidence, but a steady drip-drip-drip of stuff that makes the prosecution's case look stronger.

Aw.  Actually, I'm standing on the shoulders of (multiple) giants.  Or maybe something like 75% of those shoulders.  Which means the giants probably still see much farther than I.  Like most people, I've synthesized and combined divergent things I've learned, and I've come up with a few creative/original ideas and applications.  But much of "me" is others, including my own evidence professors and clinical instructors and training attorneys.  
 
In terms of that article, I wonder what significance the jury will give to the following:
 

 
In a decision released Thursday, Superior Court Judge Susan Garsh said she would also allow a July 12, 2013, call in which Hernandez, speaking from jail, tells his cousin Tanya Singleton: "Obviously don't say nothing."
"I'm not saying nothing," she replies.
Singleton, who has terminal cancer, spent seven months in jail for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating Lloyd's killing. She has also pleaded not guilty to helping Hernandez co-defendant Ernest Wallace flee to Georgia.
In a July 23, 2013, conversation from behind bars, Hernandez is recorded saying he set up trust funds of $75,000 or $100,000 for Singleton's two sons, which he says could grow to several hundred thousand dollars in time.
In fact, he never set up the trust funds.
 

 
Is this coming in?  My take is that he must have lied to secure her silence.  Frankly, I think that's far more suspicious/damning than actually setting up trusts for his nephews (especially if those trusts were established well before the murder).  Think about it - he's inducing a woman that he regards as a mother figure to spend some of her limited remaining time on the planet (terminal cancer) behind bars for refusing to testify on his behalf.  
 
***
In terms of silver linings, this ruling seems to be within the judge's discretion, so I'm not even sure it's a legitimate issue on appeal.  MA caselaw controls of course, but it seems relevant to me: singleton had information; she was asked not to testify by AH and essentially bribed, she didn't testify.  That's pretty much a criminal act in relation to the trial, which is a good thumbnail for whether it comes in front of a jury.  
 
(BTW, in general, trying to "win the case on appeal" is like playing Russian roulette in my book.  Not every appealable issue will result in a reversal/retrial - and appellate courts can certainly distinguish away certain issues if they believe the overall result was just.  Sometimes you can luck into setting up a rock solid issue - which means your guy might just sit in jail for 2 years before the retrial.)

 

[Rovin Romine]

God damn it, Corsi.
 
What even happens with a defendant like Hernandez when someone delivers a bomb threat?  Do they bring him back to Bristol County Jail until further notice?  I can't imagine that trial will be resumed today.

 
Most likely.  Many court houses have holding cells inside them - but they're also evacuated in the case of a bomb threat.  The detainees must be kept in custody, so they're usually bussed to a nearby facility.  Or walked there, if there's a tunnel or a bridge or something (for example, in Miami, the main criminal courthouse is linked to one of the jails by an elevated, enclosed footbridge).  

 

[Rovin Romine]

How long til defense claims that jurors are too spooked to work effectively, and moves for mistrial/change of venue?

 
I don't see this happening.  An individual juror might be excused on those grounds - and if that cuts into the constitutionally required minimum in MA, there'd be a mistrial.  Usually it would be on the jurors to come forward though.  I can't see the judge encouraging that through a polling of the jury or an inquiry mid-trial.
 
If that was the case, there'd be daily bomb threats in every single courthouse in the country.  Your buddy's trial looks bad?  Bomb threat and reboot.  
 
***
It would be fascinating if this call came from Bristol and was somehow tied to AH.  I'm not sure how that would play out.  

 

[Rovin Romine]

(Personal aside - bomb threats seem to be the theme of the week for me.  I just handled a terroristic threat case on Monday.  It was kind of a BS case, involving a bomb threat, but I was a bit worried about it since the judge's father had lost his legs in a terrorist bombing (years ago).  It all ended well though.)

 

[hittery]

It's not all bad for the defense. They got some helpful testimony from the FBI today regarding dirt on the car tire not matching the crime scene, and the shoe stuff was not the state's finest moment.

The defense may present a case-in-chief, too. It's far from over.

 

[JayMags71]

Greg Bedard's recollections of covering Hernandez: http://mmqb.si.com/2015/03/25/aaron-hernandez-odin-lloyd-trial/
 
Some tid-bits:

At the scouting combine in February 2013, I had heard from a source close to Hernandez that he was flying in from Los Angeles to Indianapolis to meet with the Patriots and ask for a trade. Hernandezs reason, the source said, was that he felt in danger from a gang back home in Bristol, Conn., that was making demands on him after hed signed his new $40 million contract extension, and he wanted to distance himself from them.
...
... I looked out the front window of the bar and saw Hernandez urinating on a running taxi cab, with the driver yelling at him.

You left out the most interesting part:

I went outside, walked up to Hernandez and suggested he should probably use the restroom inside unless he wanted to get arrested. No response. Then I lightly touched his elbow to guide him back into the bar and said, Aaron, come on. This is stupid. At that point Hernandez whipped around, got in my face, unleashed a stream of expletives and concluded, Im not a child! Youre not my dad!

I replied, Well, youre acting like a child right now. Fine, do what you want to do. Then I went back inside and joined some friends at a table.

A while later, Hernandez came back inside, shot me a My bad glance and joined the conversation. I remember him stating his desire to move to receiver full-time in the Patriots offense (something he had pleaded for with receivers coach Chad OShea, who probably didnt take the request seriously). Hernandez was back at the bar when it was time for me to call it a night. I shook his hand and said, I heard theres some stuff going on with you and your family. Hope you get the resolution youre looking for. See you later.

I wonder if Bedard, upon returning to the table said "Boy - it's a good thing I didn't just see what I saw."

 

[Rovin Romine]

I wonder if Bedard, upon returning to the table said "Boy - it's a good thing I didn't just see what I saw."

 
The trial aside, the overall AH situation is still just so weird to me.  
 
It's almost like AH thought having a secret thug lifestyle was something absolutely necessary for him.  There's not one thing this guy needed (technically illegal or not) that he couldn't have acquired through legal means or through no risk to himself (buy a lot of guns, get a CCP, have a buddy/weed-supplier drop his drugs off at his house, be single, get laid, fly to wherever and hire hookers.)  Instead, it seems like he wanted to play small time thug with his boys from HS, and the extent of his planning was to have access to firearms with no trace of sale/ownership.  The only thing those would be good for is shooting someone and ditching the weapon.  
 
I can only guess the secret life (so to speak) is tied to his conceptions of masculinity and his family. You combine that with his anger/authority issues, and the result isn't really all that surprising - hurt pride results in a shooting (or two or three), the consequences of which quickly get beyond him.
 
What is surprising is that he seems to have been given the means and multiple opportunities to break away from that dynamic, but kept pushing and pushing until something happened that couldn't be avoided.  I guess I just don't get what was so great (to AH) about that pushing and pushing.  Apparently going to a strip club with an unregistered piece was something that fed a deep void in his soul.  

 

[Reggie's Racquet]

What is surprising is that he seems to have been given the means and multiple opportunities to break away from that dynamic, but kept pushing and pushing until something happened that couldn't be avoided.  I guess I just don't get what was so great (to AH) about that pushing and pushing.  Apparently going to a strip club with an unregistered piece was something that fed a deep void in his soul.  

As former law professor I have enjoyed your posts. Thank you.
I now travel extensively for my profession and come into contact with many different cultures on a regular basis.
You get profound perspective from travel. Even more when you are immersed into a different cultural as I often am.
When I return to the U.S. and plug in to various responsible media outlets I soon realize that unfortunately we live in a very violent society.
Some of the countries I travel too are also very violent cultures...Yemen, Colombia, Mexico etc...
But there are other countries and cultures where this violent ethic does not exist.
I often find myself wanting to live there.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

 
The trial aside, the overall AH situation is still just so weird to me.  
 
It's almost like AH thought having a secret thug lifestyle was something absolutely necessary for him.  There's not one thing this guy needed (technically illegal or not) that he couldn't have acquired through legal means or through no risk to himself (buy a lot of guns, get a CCP, have a buddy/weed-supplier drop his drugs off at his house, be single, get laid, fly to wherever and hire hookers.)  Instead, it seems like he wanted to play small time thug with his boys from HS, and the extent of his planning was to have access to firearms with no trace of sale/ownership.  The only thing those would be good for is shooting someone and ditching the weapon.  
 
I can only guess the secret life (so to speak) is tied to his conceptions of masculinity and his family. You combine that with his anger/authority issues, and the result isn't really all that surprising - hurt pride results in a shooting (or two or three), the consequences of which quickly get beyond him.
 
What is surprising is that he seems to have been given the means and multiple opportunities to break away from that dynamic, but kept pushing and pushing until something happened that couldn't be avoided.  I guess I just don't get what was so great (to AH) about that pushing and pushing.  Apparently going to a strip club with an unregistered piece was something that fed a deep void in his soul.  

The heart wants what the heart wants. When you grow up a certain way around certain individuals and only know one way to act all the money and fame in the world doesn't change the fabric of who you are.

From all accounts I've heard AH's father was a maniac as well. AH was a thug growing up in Bristol and not some guy who made a conscious decision to play one once he reached the NFL. He was a thug in Florida running with a rough crowd and (allegedly) shooting people.....multiple people.

This is not a good person or a sane person who is sitting at a table making calculates decisions that benefit his family and his future. AH is/was a drug addict and a terrible human being prior to becoming rich.....money didn't change the person.

I still need more than the prosecution is giving us to find him guilty of this crime however.

 

[ifmanis5]

Court is back in session.

 

[soxfan121]

Aw.  Actually, I'm standing on the shoulders of (multiple) giants.  Or maybe something like 75% of those shoulders.  Which means the giants probably still see much farther than I.  Like most people, I've synthesized and combined divergent things I've learned, and I've come up with a few creative/original ideas and applications.  But much of "me" is others, including my own evidence professors and clinical instructors and training attorneys.  
 
In terms of that article, I wonder what significance the jury will give to the following:
 
 
Is this coming in?  My take is that he must have lied to secure her silence.  Frankly, I think that's far more suspicious/damning than actually setting up trusts for his nephews (especially if those trusts were established well before the murder).  Think about it - he's inducing a woman that he regards as a mother figure to spend some of her limited remaining time on the planet (terminal cancer) behind bars for refusing to testify on his behalf.  
 

 
You're the best, RR. However, I think there's an alternate explanation for AH not setting up the promised accounts and why Singleton might remain loyal - his assets were seized/frozen, right? She's going to die, the slim chance that AH is exonerated and will set up those accounts might be the explanation. Her kids get nothing if she testifies.

 

[joe dokes]

 
 
What is surprising is that he seems to have been given the means and multiple opportunities to break away from that dynamic, but kept pushing and pushing until something happened that couldn't be avoided.  I guess I just don't get what was so great (to AH) about that pushing and pushing.  Apparently going to a strip club with an unregistered piece was something that fed a deep void in his soul.  

 
He didn't see it as "pushing and pushing."  To him, it seems, that's living.

 

[Rovin Romine]

The heart wants what the heart wants. When you grow up a certain way around certain individuals and only know one way to act all the money and fame in the world doesn't change the fabric of who you are.

 
I understand what you're saying.   However, sometimes college provides you with different models - or dedicated programs of activity with good role models.  The NFL has the potential to be that.  Whether it is and to what degree is another discussion. 
 
I don't think it's as simple as "once on a bad path - always there."   At least not in this case.  It's not like AH was just handed a ton of cash - he earned it in an elite environment.  

 

[Shelterdog]

The heart wants what the heart wants. When you grow up a certain way around certain individuals and only know one way to act all the money and fame in the world doesn't change the fabric of who you are.

From all accounts I've heard AH's father was a maniac as well. AH was a thug growing up in Bristol and not some guy who made a conscious decision to play one once he reached the NFL. He was a thug in Florida running with a rough crowd and (allegedly) shooting people.....multiple people.

This is not a good person or a sane person who is sitting at a table making calculates decisions that benefit his family and his future. AH is/was a drug addict and a terrible human being prior to becoming rich.....money didn't change the person.

I still need more than the prosecution is giving us to find him guilty of this crime however.

 
I haven't followed the trial that closely but really? The footprints, tire tracks, shell casings in the rental car, video of the victim getting in the Altima,  pictures of Hernandez coming home with a gun, the tracking data from the phones showing the victim travelling in the Altima--and various videotapes showing the Altima going from the victim's home to the crime site to Hernandez's house--that's not enough for you?

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
You're the best, RR. However, I think there's an alternate explanation for AH not setting up the promised accounts and why Singleton might remain loyal - his assets were seized/frozen, right? She's going to die, the slim chance that AH is exonerated and will set up those accounts might be the explanation. Her kids get nothing if she testifies.

 
I don't know what happened to AH's assets.  Usually they're not frozen - unless there's some sort of injunction in the civil case, which is rare.  The assets shouldn't have been seized either, since they have no relation to the crime or crimes alleged.  (Maybe they were under some federal gun theory - I've no idea and my first guess is that it's highly unlikely.)
 
I think a civil suit was filed by OL's family - so AH can't dispose of his assets in an attempt to thwart a just recovery in the future.   That's the whole body of law concerning "fraudulent transfers," of which I'm sure MA has a version.  But if he has multiple millions, I'm not sure putting $175K in a trust account is something that would be actively prevented by the judicial system, civil or criminal, especially since it could always be undone after the fact.  (If AH gave all of his money to a charity tomorrow, I'm sure there'd be a motion filed regarding that in the civil case.)   

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
I haven't followed the trial that closely but really? The footprints, tire tracks, shell casings in the rental car, video of the victim getting in the Altima,  pictures of Hernandez coming home with a gun, the tracking data from the phones showing the victim travelling in the Altima--and various videotapes showing the Altima going from the victim's home to the crime site to Hernandez's house--that's not enough for you?

 
You forgot to put the word "alleged" in front of every noun and "allegedly" in front of every verb. 

 

[Shelterdog]

 
You forgot to put the word "alleged" in front of every noun and "allegedly" in front of every verb. 

 
Well sure-and we can all readily imagine a jury that doesn't convict for whatever the reason.  I'm just curious as to why what we have isn't enough for HRB because, honestly, from what I know about what's in evidence Hernandez is screwed big time.
 
I'll also grant that it's really hard to see this as a juror would because we all know about the "I'm with NFL" text from Lloyd 10 minutes before Lloyd was shot.  I find that evidence incredibly compelling but I take it it isn't in evidence.  [IIRC and my google foo is accurate she was able to testify that she received the texts from Lloyd but not that they stated he was with Hernandez.]

 

[NortheasternPJ]

I still need more than the prosecution is giving us to find him guilty of this crime however.

 
Serious question. What do you need in order to make the jump?  This is a very different line for everyone so I'm interested in what you've seen so far that puts this beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Do you think AH didn't actually do it or is it an issue of the prosecution in this case so far hasn't proved it in court and you're excluding everything else we allegedly know as if you're a juror?
 
The gun? Someone to flip on him? A confession? A video of him shooting Lloyd?
 
IANAL but my understanding is that the prosecution doesn't even have to prove the Sweetleaf pulled the trigger. If he knew they were going to pick him up for one of his boys to shoot him, that's good enough. 

 

[Van Everyman]

The heart wants what the heart wants. When you grow up a certain way around certain individuals and only know one way to act all the money and fame in the world doesn't change the fabric of who you are.

From all accounts I've heard AH's father was a maniac as well. AH was a thug growing up in Bristol and not some guy who made a conscious decision to play one once he reached the NFL. He was a thug in Florida running with a rough crowd and (allegedly) shooting people.....multiple people.

This is not a good person or a sane person who is sitting at a table making calculates decisions that benefit his family and his future. AH is/was a drug addict and a terrible human being prior to becoming rich.....money didn't change the person.

I don't necessarily disagree with your underlying point. And I understand why people might see this in very black and white terms. But the RS article indicated a more complex story, particularly about his father -- saying that he was def. into some really bad stuff as a young man, but by all accounts straightened himself out and was a really good father to Aaron and his brother:

Either way, parenthood seemed to scare the twins straight. Both became fathers, found steady work and had no further truck with Bristol cops. (Neither David nor anyone else in the Hernandez family returned phone calls seeking comment.) Dennis married Terri Valentine, a school secretary in Bristol, and got a job on the custodial staff at the other of the town’s two high schools, Bristol Eastern. They bought a small cottage on Greystone Avenue and produced two wildly gifted sons: DJ, now 27 and an assistant football coach at the University of Iowa, and Aaron, three years younger but bigger and faster, the apogee of the family’s genetics.

Each surpassed his father, both on the field and off, in part because Dennis took elaborate pains to keep them on the straight and narrow. Dennis built a gym in the family basement, paved a chunk of the backyard over for a half-court and staged three-on-three tourneys there, and peppered the boys with can-do slogans, burning them in through repetition. “Some do, some don’t,” he was always telling them. “If it is to be, it is up to me,” went another. He was bent on getting his sons to do everything right, whether it was making the proper blitz read or handing homework in on time, perhaps because he’d squandered his own chance.

DJ seemed his natural heir – the star passer and guard at Bristol Central who played three years of quarterback at UConn and made the dean’s list two years running – until Aaron blew by him on the rail. A huge-for-high-school tight end with wideout speed and a pair of glue-trap hands, he posted the kind of numbers you never see in Northeast states: 1,800 yards and 24 touchdowns in a season, almost 400 yards receiving in a single game, and 12 sacks and three forced fumbles as a part-time blitzer, winning Defensive Player of the Year honors his junior year in 2005. His great asset, besides his hands, which were strong as clamps, was the gift scouts call escapability; he couldn’t be brought down after the catch. He was too big and too fast, and he used his free arm well to shed tacklers. You had to gang up or pin him against the sideline, and even then he’d wriggle out for more yards. “Best athlete this city’s ever produced, and a more polite, humble kid you couldn’t find,” says Bob Montgomery, a columnist for the Press and the town’s official historian. “He’d be in here with his father being interviewed as Athlete of the Week, and there was never any swagger or street stuff from him, just ‘Yes, sir,’ ‘No, sir’ and 'Thank you.'"

...

“Part of Aaron’s problem is, he never got no street sense; Dennis sheltered them from that life with all his might,” says Gary Fortier. “He was the perfect dad: He went to every scrimmage, and got ’em up at dawn to work out,” says Brandon Beam, an insurance agent in Southington who played against Aaron in practice each day as a cornerback for Bristol Central. A middle-class, mixed-race kid (mom Italian; dad Puerto Rican), Aaron had little trouble fitting into suburban Bristol. “He didn’t speak Spanish and had no tattoos,” says Jordan Carello, a Bristol football teammate who recently worked at the Doubletree hotel in town. “He was so focused on his body that he barely partied, maybe snuck a little weed here and there. But we all did that, ’cause our parents were always home. If we wanted to drink on weekends, we had to run out to someone’s car.”

The article goes on to trash the mom, however.

Now, it's possible that the writers (not Borges, who did the Patriots portion of this) oversimplified AH's father's transformation. But if true, while it doesn't really explain how AH turned into a(n allegedly) homicidal maniac, it does render his upbringing much more complicated that you make it out to be -- and my own judgment of all this a little less "This guy was just bad, always was, end of story" than you put it above.

 

[djbayko]

 
I understand what you're saying.   However, sometimes college provides you with different models - or dedicated programs of activity with good role models.  The NFL has the potential to be that.  Whether it is and to what degree is another discussion. 
 
I don't think it's as simple as "once on a bad path - always there."   At least not in this case.  It's not like AH was just handed a ton of cash - he earned it in an elite environment.  

While we have seen some turnarounds, there are far too many examples of players being unable to escape the thug life. AH is one of the few who have stooped as low as murder (that we know of). I'm sure the college programs provided good guidance and role models on the field. In his little time off the field, he likely had football groupies doing his homework and take home exams while he was clubbing, partying, and possibly thugging. I mean, I went to a well respected engineering school with a losing D3 football team, and it was very close to that at my school. Especially for a star player, college further ingrains their feeling of invincibility.

 

[Monbo Jumbo]

My entent of following this trial has been RR's amazing recaps. Thank you sir. They don't seem either elite or incompetent in the courtroom based on RR's reporting. Hard to say without being there every day though.

I'm playing a juror here about as impartially as I possibly can. If I were actually in the pool I'd have to state that I am a terrible candidate as you would have to be a damn fool to allow this murderer to walk.

Trying to keep impartial I'm still awaiting the "Ah ha!" moment which to me is on the prosecution to deliver as it is their burden to do so. Until then i still feel the celebrity of the case favors the defense as it currently stands.

 
 

...
I still need more than the prosecution is giving us to find him guilty of this crime however.

 
 

 
Serious question. What do you need in order to make the jump?  This is a very different line for everyone so I'm interested in what you've seen so far that puts this beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
...

 
He answered the question up thread, when he showed he doesn't truly understand what circumstantial evidence is. Circumstantial evidence can build a rock-solid case without that single 'a ha' component. People who demand such a component don't get the concept. - in my opinion, of course.