Edit - life stream trial feed: http://www.wildabouttrial.com/trial_videos/aaron-hernandez-live-stream/
(Also at NECN)
Edit - video clips from the trial, day by day. Seems to be a pretty complete record: http://www.wildabouttrial.com/trial_videos/aaron-hernandez-trial-archive/
Edit - Brian Fraga from the Fall River Herald News does a great job of providing continuous trial coverage via his Twitter feed
@BfragaHN
***
We already have a couple of threads on AH.
AH Questioned Thread (locked)
AH Charged Thread (locked)
AH Jailhouse Thread
I thought we'd benefit from a new thread for the trial. It's always good to re-read and skim though. (If memory served, when the news broke I thought there was a good chance it was BS because I figured no one in AH's situation would be so incredibly stupid. Crimes of passion/obsession are one thing, but incompetent cold blooded murder is quite another.)
There's been a lot of good analysis from different posters on all sorts of background information; this includes the charges, evidence, info on PCP, AH's history, Bristol CT, etc.
***
News Sources:
Local Fall River crime reporter's twitter: https://twitter.com/BfragaHN
***
So far the trial's had one day of jury selection, called Voir Dire. Prior to this, the judge made a number of pre-trial rulings, so attorneys for both sides have a reasonable expectation as to what's allowed to come in at trial and whats going to stay outside the jury's knowledge. These rulings are done before the trial so that both sides can better select jury members. (Meaning the attorneys don't have to question potential jurors on an issue they know is outside of the trial issues.)
While these pre-trial rulings on evidence are "final," they can still be changed during trial itself, depending on what witnesses say and where the evidence goes.
For example, a potentially huge issue is being reported by the Globe. Shayanna Jenkins, AH's finance, has been meeting with prosecutors. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/01/09/eve-hernandez-trial-possible-game-changer/8CZkrqkQuNVQbq7QlPn7BO/story.html
While this sort of meeting does not suggest any particular outcome, it raises a very real question as to whether Jenkins stick by AH or break ranks. Since she's been listed by the prosecution as a witness, Jenkins will have to testify if she's called to the stand; the manner and extent to which she testifies depends on a lot of particular legal issues. Essentially, Jenkins can fully cooperate with the prosecution or turtle up as much as she can on the stand. There's not really a solid middle ground.
Jenkins' decision is going to be shaped by pretty powerful forces. She's 25 and the mother of AH's child. Testifying against your kid's father (who is facing life in prison) is no easy thing. There's also the issue of what's going to happen to AH's money/assets - whatever plans she had for her child and herself are going to radically change if he's convicted. Regardless of the likelihood of an acquittal or a conviction, Jenkins may think she's got a lot to lose by testifying "for" the prosecution. On the other hand, she's facing perjury charges for lying about disposing of a box potentially containing the murder weapon. Prosecutors still might be able to charge her as an accessory to murder, depending on the facts that come out at trial. Plus there's the conflicting family pressure; Odin Lloyd was her sister's boyfriend. Lastly, there's her individual psychology, sense of identity, cultural biases and personal moral scope. People can do the "right" thing, or the "wrong" thing for reasons which are powerful and legitimate to them alone. Is she a "stand by family no matter what" person, or a person who believes that any human can cross over into monstrousness?
Usually when the prosecution wants to induce this sort of witness to testify, there's an offer of immunity. Meaning, the witness won't be charged for their role in events, so long as they testify fully and truthfully. Immunity isn't set in stone though; it is usually offered depending on the value of the testimony. (Sometimes, the fact that immunity was granted would make the desired testimony near-worthless, so immunity isn't offered.)
Here, the factual value of her testimony is important. While the gun might not be recovered, Jenkins' factual testimony would show the jury exactly how the gun could have been disposed of and explain why the prosecution can't recover it. The prosecution can probably get those facts out of her whether she's a friendly or a hostile witness. (Unless she's able to invoke her fifth amendment rights, which might protect her, but, in this sort of context, is usually as good as a factual admission for a jury.)
However, the emotional value of her genuinely testifying for the prosecution is potentially much greater than the mere facts. Nearly every trial is a factual and emotional battle. One can establish the likelihood of facts for the jury, but the jurors' basic emotional feelings of "guilt" can be amplified or diminished by what I think of as the emotional "judgement" of the testifying witnesses. I say "judgment" because while regular witnesses can't offer their opinion on whether they think someone's guilty, juries can read between the lines. For example, for some jurors, a mother willingly testifying against her child will color how they view the entire case.
So, for this jury, Jenkins' most important answer could be in response to seemingly simple introductory questions: "Who are you? And why are you testifying today?" Depending on the answer, the jury could see AH's finance, the mother of his child, essentially condemning him. She could be seen as turning on AH because she's privately convinced of his guilt, and/or because she was a victim/stooge of her psychopathic husband. A good prosecutor will use her appearance to draw a line between AH the murderer and the facade of AH the family man, in some ways rendering all his NFL glory hollow. (There are ways for a good defense attorney to draw out some of the sting, but at the end of the day that sort of testimony isn't good for the defense.)
Oddly enough, if Jenkins tries to fight or deny on the stand, her appearance, in the hands of a good prosecutor, *could* be just as effective as if Jenkins "turned" on AH. It's a tricker road though, and depends on Jenkins' personality on the stand. It could involve trying to make Jenkins look like an accomplice after the fact due to her personal biases, or trying to make her look like a decent person who was fundamentally duped by AH. Such a path may run the risk of making the prosecution look mean or vindictive. It's usually far easier to call someone like Jenkins as a friendly witness and portray them as another victim who now knows the truth about AH.
While the factual case against AH looks to be exceptionally strong already, Jenkins' testimony does have the potential to be the proverbial nail in the coffin. One way or the other.
(Also at NECN)
Edit - video clips from the trial, day by day. Seems to be a pretty complete record: http://www.wildabouttrial.com/trial_videos/aaron-hernandez-trial-archive/
Edit - Brian Fraga from the Fall River Herald News does a great job of providing continuous trial coverage via his Twitter feed
@BfragaHN
***
We already have a couple of threads on AH.
AH Questioned Thread (locked)
AH Charged Thread (locked)
AH Jailhouse Thread
I thought we'd benefit from a new thread for the trial. It's always good to re-read and skim though. (If memory served, when the news broke I thought there was a good chance it was BS because I figured no one in AH's situation would be so incredibly stupid. Crimes of passion/obsession are one thing, but incompetent cold blooded murder is quite another.)
There's been a lot of good analysis from different posters on all sorts of background information; this includes the charges, evidence, info on PCP, AH's history, Bristol CT, etc.
***
News Sources:
Local Fall River crime reporter's twitter: https://twitter.com/BfragaHN
***
So far the trial's had one day of jury selection, called Voir Dire. Prior to this, the judge made a number of pre-trial rulings, so attorneys for both sides have a reasonable expectation as to what's allowed to come in at trial and whats going to stay outside the jury's knowledge. These rulings are done before the trial so that both sides can better select jury members. (Meaning the attorneys don't have to question potential jurors on an issue they know is outside of the trial issues.)
While these pre-trial rulings on evidence are "final," they can still be changed during trial itself, depending on what witnesses say and where the evidence goes.
For example, a potentially huge issue is being reported by the Globe. Shayanna Jenkins, AH's finance, has been meeting with prosecutors. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/01/09/eve-hernandez-trial-possible-game-changer/8CZkrqkQuNVQbq7QlPn7BO/story.html
While this sort of meeting does not suggest any particular outcome, it raises a very real question as to whether Jenkins stick by AH or break ranks. Since she's been listed by the prosecution as a witness, Jenkins will have to testify if she's called to the stand; the manner and extent to which she testifies depends on a lot of particular legal issues. Essentially, Jenkins can fully cooperate with the prosecution or turtle up as much as she can on the stand. There's not really a solid middle ground.
Jenkins' decision is going to be shaped by pretty powerful forces. She's 25 and the mother of AH's child. Testifying against your kid's father (who is facing life in prison) is no easy thing. There's also the issue of what's going to happen to AH's money/assets - whatever plans she had for her child and herself are going to radically change if he's convicted. Regardless of the likelihood of an acquittal or a conviction, Jenkins may think she's got a lot to lose by testifying "for" the prosecution. On the other hand, she's facing perjury charges for lying about disposing of a box potentially containing the murder weapon. Prosecutors still might be able to charge her as an accessory to murder, depending on the facts that come out at trial. Plus there's the conflicting family pressure; Odin Lloyd was her sister's boyfriend. Lastly, there's her individual psychology, sense of identity, cultural biases and personal moral scope. People can do the "right" thing, or the "wrong" thing for reasons which are powerful and legitimate to them alone. Is she a "stand by family no matter what" person, or a person who believes that any human can cross over into monstrousness?
Usually when the prosecution wants to induce this sort of witness to testify, there's an offer of immunity. Meaning, the witness won't be charged for their role in events, so long as they testify fully and truthfully. Immunity isn't set in stone though; it is usually offered depending on the value of the testimony. (Sometimes, the fact that immunity was granted would make the desired testimony near-worthless, so immunity isn't offered.)
Here, the factual value of her testimony is important. While the gun might not be recovered, Jenkins' factual testimony would show the jury exactly how the gun could have been disposed of and explain why the prosecution can't recover it. The prosecution can probably get those facts out of her whether she's a friendly or a hostile witness. (Unless she's able to invoke her fifth amendment rights, which might protect her, but, in this sort of context, is usually as good as a factual admission for a jury.)
However, the emotional value of her genuinely testifying for the prosecution is potentially much greater than the mere facts. Nearly every trial is a factual and emotional battle. One can establish the likelihood of facts for the jury, but the jurors' basic emotional feelings of "guilt" can be amplified or diminished by what I think of as the emotional "judgement" of the testifying witnesses. I say "judgment" because while regular witnesses can't offer their opinion on whether they think someone's guilty, juries can read between the lines. For example, for some jurors, a mother willingly testifying against her child will color how they view the entire case.
So, for this jury, Jenkins' most important answer could be in response to seemingly simple introductory questions: "Who are you? And why are you testifying today?" Depending on the answer, the jury could see AH's finance, the mother of his child, essentially condemning him. She could be seen as turning on AH because she's privately convinced of his guilt, and/or because she was a victim/stooge of her psychopathic husband. A good prosecutor will use her appearance to draw a line between AH the murderer and the facade of AH the family man, in some ways rendering all his NFL glory hollow. (There are ways for a good defense attorney to draw out some of the sting, but at the end of the day that sort of testimony isn't good for the defense.)
Oddly enough, if Jenkins tries to fight or deny on the stand, her appearance, in the hands of a good prosecutor, *could* be just as effective as if Jenkins "turned" on AH. It's a tricker road though, and depends on Jenkins' personality on the stand. It could involve trying to make Jenkins look like an accomplice after the fact due to her personal biases, or trying to make her look like a decent person who was fundamentally duped by AH. Such a path may run the risk of making the prosecution look mean or vindictive. It's usually far easier to call someone like Jenkins as a friendly witness and portray them as another victim who now knows the truth about AH.
While the factual case against AH looks to be exceptionally strong already, Jenkins' testimony does have the potential to be the proverbial nail in the coffin. One way or the other.