Seems like easy questions so far. Which is letting her get acclimated. I'd have pushed on a juicer issue first.
Well one reason I'm skeptical of a guilty verdict is that I am a typical juror. Relatively young-middle aged college educated regular person rather than many in this thread with law degrees who have much experience in these settings. The juror who knows who Aaron Hernandez is, knows his celebrity, and may be overly cautious in assuming what occurred to the point of leaving too far to the other side in the attempt to make a fair decision.Rovin Romine said:
Hey, I want you on my juries!
Yes, the scenario you're proposing is possible. Another scenario (far more likely than yours) is that Wallace or Ortiz just flipped out and unloaded on OL, without AH having any idea what was going to happen. However, the prosecutor will argue is that the state has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt. So far fetched theories shouldn't carry weight. For example, it's also possible that Ortiz was just showing OL his gun and it randomly went off five times. I doubt a jury acquits on that theory though. Juries can and should rely on their common sense.
This is part of why the shoe/tire impressions are so important, btw - if this happened in an urban environment, there would always be the question of whether OL was shot by some random last minute interloper (hobo theory). The gravel/dirt/surveillance videos preclude that type of scenario.
Jury instructions for purely circumstantial cases in MA:
MA caselaw on that could be tricky though - OL's body is direct evidence of an unlawful killing by another, but the fact that the killer was AH (or that AH was a joint venturer in the killing) seems to be circumstantial at this point.
Here, the "Wallace/Ortiz randomly flipped out" scenario is undercut by AH's actions before, during, and after the killing. It's up to the jury to decide whether they have a "clear and settled belief" in AH's guilt.
Also, the jury will want to know why AH didn't just say that from the beginning, or tell the police one of his friends murdered another one in cold blood, right before his eyes. Technically, that's shifting the burden to the defense (i.e., making the defense prove something), but juries are human. They're not going to give the "flip out" scenario a lot of weight in closing if it hasn't been raised and developed throughout the trial.
JimBoSox9 said:Holy hell with the blinking on the "no" answers. I'm not trying to say it's dispositive, but damn.
HomeRunBaker said:Well one reason I'm skeptical of a guilty verdict is that I am a typical juror. Relatively young-middle aged college educated regular person rather than many in this thread with law degrees who have much experience in these settings. The juror who knows who Aaron Hernandez is, knows his celebrity, and may be overly cautious in assuming what occurred to the point of leaving too far to the other side in the attempt to make a fair decision.
A major problem i have foreseen is the jury and how they interpret the barrels of circumstantial evidence and how the prosecutor delivers it to make the casual juror certain that he has a tight case. As much as the phrase is thrown around there is no "impartial juror" in a case like this and it could hurt the prosecution because you don't know how far their opinion sways in how much evidence they need to be presented. There is a ton of volatility in a jury for a case such as this in my opinion. I'm not saying my opinion is correct by any means.
HomeRunBaker said:Well one reason I'm skeptical of a guilty verdict is that I am a typical juror. Relatively young-middle aged college educated regular person rather than many in this thread with law degrees who have much experience in these settings. The juror who knows who Aaron Hernandez is, knows his celebrity, and may be overly cautious in assuming what occurred to the point of leaving too far to the other side in the attempt to make a fair decision.
A major problem i have foreseen is the jury and how they interpret the barrels of circumstantial evidence and how the prosecutor delivers it to make the casual juror certain that he has a tight case. As much as the phrase is thrown around there is no "impartial juror" in a case like this and it could hurt the prosecution because you don't know how far their opinion sways in how much evidence they need to be presented. There is a ton of volatility in a jury for a case such as this in my opinion. I'm not saying my opinion is correct by any means.
The lives of others...keep up the good work in here.NortheasternPJ said:Honey, where's the tape measure? Go in the junk drawer, it's right under the handgun.
I didn't realize this as the only time I was called the case never went to trial. Damn, that makes it worse and even MORE volatile. God our system sucks.OilCanShotTupac said:
That doesn't make you a typical juror.
You would be a typical juror if you were a soda delivery truck driver with a high school education, or a waitress.
Not trying to denigrate working folks - just the reality. I sat on one jury, and among the six jurors and two alternates, there was only one person besides me who had even a college education, and she was a dance major who was working as an office temp.
Why does AH have a flashlight in broad daylight? Never can be too sure?norm from cheers said:This is the clearest picture I have seen of AH with the gun which Jenkins claimed looked like a black blob in the picture. must be a pretty big junk drawer.
Van Everyman said:I just have this on in the bgd but I'm having a hard time thinking she looks particularly nervous or is giving moronic answers. I mean, she's testifying at her fiancé's murder trial. Is it that hard to believe she may take a few seconds to remember things like when she moved into her house?
It's a feature, not a bug.I didn't realize this as the only time I was called the case never went to trial. Damn, that makes it worse and even MORE volatile. God our system sucks.
Rovin Romine said:
I can certainly see a juror or an observer attributing her reactions to just nerves. For me the key is that she's quick on some answers, like she's expecting them. When the prosecutor moves off script, she has to think and pause and work out what she should say. That kind of orients the nervousness for me.
Plus, if her man is innocent, she can just come out with all the basic innocent facts, right? I'm pretty sure someone on the jury is thinking that.
She's kind of a proxy for AH. She does not seem fired up about his innocence though.
For example, just now the state asked about the relationship between OL and AH - and she did not say they were friends. She said that they "may have hung out on some occasions." She has to be directly prompted into saying they were "friends." Then she won't commit to whether or not she said that OL and AH were "cordial." She has to be shown her previous testimony. She admits "they weren't the best of friends."
So the demeanor is, from my point of view, pretty bad.
Also, she basically admitted to a gun consistent with the glock being kept in the kitchen.
***
SOSHers - PLEASE SHARE YOUR IMPRESSION OF HER ON THE STAND! I've got a kind of quirky angle on witnesses. I'd love to hear what you all think.
soxhop411 said:
JimBoSox9 said:
Why did the judge sustain the objections about her describing the 'black blob'?
And there is a giant picture, over and over, of Aaron Hernandez with an obvious gun in his waist. Who cares what she says - just get another excuse to show the picture.Rovin Romine said:(The prosecutor made his point to the jury though. It's not a black blob. If she was forced to, she'd have to admit it looks like it could be the gun from the drawer. That's one of those "can't lose" questions, BTW, she gives you the answer you want, or she gives you plenty of traction to go after a patently unreasonable answer.)
theapportioner said:
Why would this text message be admissible, when ones like "I'm with NFL" aren't?
Jnai said:Never having heard a woman testify in her fiancee's murder trial, I think she sounds pretty reasonable, to be honest. Where were you last Tuesday? What did you have for dinner that night? Which kind of plate did you use? Did you watch TV last night? What did you watch?
A lot of these questions seem like those sorts of questions, except from 1-2 years ago, and those sorts of questions take time to answer (if you can answer them at all).
Yes. Excellent point, and I'm sure part of the prosecution's strategy. (I'd love to see the jury's faces - watching how SJ reacted to the picture they've already seen over and over.)Joshv02 said:And there is a giant picture, over and over, of Aaron Hernandez with an obvious gun in his waist. Who cares what she says - just get another excuse to show the picture.
The question itself is the real tell AFAIC. It's a tacit admission to the jury that she thinks AH is capable of killing someone.DaughtersofDougMirabelli said:However, I do agree with whoever said upthread that it is incredibly shady that when she found out Odin was murdered she asked Aaron "Did you do it?" and after he replied no they had no further conversations.
I have about 1/100,000th of a connection to Aaron and Odin as Shayanna and all I did that day was discuss this matter with friends/SoSH. She would have most certainly asked every detail about what happened that night. He may have told her to not ask any questions but she hasn't admitted to that either.
Rovin Romine said:
OK. This brings us up to 3 varieties of "maybe/neutral" for SJ's testimony thus far. (If that's a fair way to characterize these responses.) Anyone else?
We're looking for opinions on her demeanor, not smoking guns, per se. Is she sketchy or not? Does she seem coached? Does she come across as trustworthy or not? If she had the most relevant testimony on some point, would you trust her? Is she sympathetic? Do we "feel" for her? That sort of thing.
I'd also love to hear people's analysis of the likely veracity of her testimony, but I'm very curious as to impressions of her demeanor.
Rovin Romine said:See, this is why you shouldn't trust pundits (or me). I (defense attorney) am firmly in the "sketchy" box.
But we have two "potential juror" votes for "maybe sketchy, maybe not."
Any ladies out there who want to weigh in? Lots of women on the jury, and SJ is pretty. I'm not the best with women-on-women dynamics/judging. (One reason why I often go with a female trial partner.)
P'tucket said:The question itself is the real tell AFAIC. It's a tacit admission to the jury that she thinks AH is capable of killing someone.
bosoxsue said:
I haven't been able to watch much of the livestream. I will say that based on only seeing photos of her to this point, her delivery/demeanor give me a positive impression compared to what I expected from someone who cakes on the makeup and whose only job is athlete's girlfriend. I'm sort of exasperated on her behalf of having to remember things like how long someone was her boyfriend's barber. However, I thought it strange that she doesn't know the babysitter's last name, as I'd imagine Shayanna's world revolved around that child. However, maybe being super-wealthy by proxy, the details of the little people are something you forget.
HomeRunBaker said:I didn't realize this as the only time I was called the case never went to trial. Damn, that makes it worse and even MORE volatile. God our system sucks.
Maybe a non-loss, but even then I think its pretty bad for the defense. She sees AH get drunk and high, they get the "i fucked up" text through, they get the gun car (which may not make a ton of sense, but none of AH's life makes sense), they get someone talking about all the pot he smokes, again; they get him drunk and high at the start of the night that matters; they continually call a co-conspirator "bo," they get her to basically say AH used OL for pot but that they weren't friends even though he came over and they smoked up in the basement. And we just had lunch.Rovin Romine said:
The testimony is far from over, and we haven't touched on anything truly juicy except for the gun in the drawer. But if it were to end now, based on the not-sketcy/neutral impression, her testimony would be a "win" for the defense.
Joshv02 said:Maybe a non-loss, but even then I think its pretty bad for the defense. She sees AH get drunk and high, they get the "i fucked up" text through, they get the gun car (which may not make a ton of sense, but none of AH's life makes sense), they get someone talking about all the pot he smokes, again; they get him drunk and high at the start of the night that matters; they continually call a co-conspirator "bo," they get her to basically say AH used OL for pot but that they weren't friends even though he came over and they smoked up in the basement. And we just had lunch.
OilCanShotTupac said:I think the text is pretty damning.
yeahlunchbox said:I've been listening in the background at work, did the prosecution really put her social security number up in front of the whole court? If so, how sloppy can you be? I know it's not central to the case, but as a juror I think that would color how I viewed the witness and the prosecutor.