Aaron Hernandez Trial (Odin Lloyd)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Montana Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 18, 2000
8,881
Twin Bridges, Mt.
Wasn't the text sent the night after he was out with OL and then took him and the babysitter back to the "spot"?  Seems like he was worried about what Shayanna might hear as well.
 
It's pretty evident that AH is not a smart person.  A friend of mine who is from the same neighborhood and spent a bit of time around AH and a lot of time around his dad describes AH as "stunted".  Says when AH was a kid of around 7-8 he'd play in the sandbox with the little 3-5 year old kids.  You can't get more second hand than this description but "simple or feeble minded" might be an adequate way of describing AH.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
JimBoSox9 said:
YES SHE RECOGNIZES THE NUMBER IT'S HERS OR AARONS
 
I think she just testified that she didn't really call anyone all that much.  So this pretty much destroys that.  We'll see if the prosecutor ties this up.  He hasn't been very good at spelling out what he's doing.   
 
ooh - nice he just interjected a question as to when she spoke to her sister about OL's death.  Looks like she spent all her immediate time after learning about OL's death trying to get Wallace out of the state. 
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
NortheasternPJ said:
I was. As closing yes. Asking her now? I wouldn't
Yeah, they aren't really allowing her any chance to expand in her answers for anything.  Even when she called "Murph," they preface with "just yes or know."  Its very tight, which is why they sometimes bumbled around with getting her to go over the chron of seeing things like the police cars outside the house.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
Rovin Romine said:
 
I think she just testified that she didn't really call anyone all that much.  So this pretty much destroys that.  We'll see if the prosecutor ties this up.  He hasn't been very good at spelling out what he's doing.   
 
ooh - nice he just interjected a question as to when she spoke to her sister about OL's death.  Looks like she spent all her immediate time after learning about OL's death trying to get Wallace out of the state. 
I wish I was able to watch that. How did she react? I'm guessing like she's dumb.

Have they asked her when her and her sister became estranged and why?
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
Rovin Romine said:
 
 
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. 
 
I think she's lying about stuff and/or trying to be evasive, but that doesn't necessarily make me think too badly of her as a witness, or make me think AH is guilty.  I expect most defendents' spouses to want to protect each other no matter what he/she did, and so I would expect her to be evasive.  I think her testimony admits scenarios where AH was around but the other two guys did the murder.  I realize many of those scenarios mean he is still guilty, but I believe some of them do not.  I only saw the voir dire this morning, though. 
 
 
I thought her question to AH, "Did you do it?" was pretty damning though I realize it wasn't in front of the jury.  Whose first question is that after hearing about a murder?  That's a really bad sign in my mind if I were a juror.
 
Although after thinking about it a bit, maybe that question really meant "Did you do it, or was it Fish or Carlos?" 
 
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
It's the first question if you knew your fiancé was a murder. I'm sure that's not what she's going for though.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
NortheasternPJ said:
It's the first question if you knew your fiancé was a murder. I'm sure that's not what she's going for though.
 
Yeah, exactly.  You only ask that question if you know he is capable of murder. 
That would be a killer comment if I was a juror.  No pun intended.
 
NortheasternPJ said:
Have they asked her when her and her sister became estranged and why?
 
Objection, relevance.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Well, that was kind of mind numbing.  Testimony (direct) resumes on Monday.  
 
We'll see what happens, but I have to think there were far more effective ways to go about all that.   The prosecution got out some useful facts, but didn't push her at all.  Personally, I'd have "looped" the questions back to show inconsistencies or to identify odd points.
 
The fact that she drove to give wallace and ortiz cash was super bad - a 12am drive with her daughter in the car to give hush/travel money to a couple of thugs.  Plus all the convos with AH and his agent.  You'd think in normal circumstances her first call would have been to her sister.
 
So I'd have done things like point out the daughter was in the car several times.  Or asked if the kid's diaper had to be changed during the trip.  Or when tabulating the calls, ask, so at this point  you're driving to give Wallace cash, but you haven't yet called your sister?  Things like that.  
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
crystalline said:
 
I think she's lying about stuff and/or trying to be evasive, but that doesn't necessarily make me think too badly of her as a witness, or make me think AH is guilty.  I expect most defendents' spouses to want to protect each other no matter what he/she did, and so I would expect her to be evasive.  I think her testimony admits scenarios where AH was around but the other two guys did the murder.  I realize many of those scenarios mean he is still guilty, but I believe some of them do not.  I only saw the voir dire this morning, though. 
 
 
 
 
Her lying/evasiveness now may not make a juror think AH is guilty, but it will take her out of serious play if the defense tries to use her to help him.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
I'm glad MA has joint venture in this case, otherwise I think there's a chance he might have gotten away with this. As things stand now, I don't see how Hernandez gets off. I'd say I have a fairly strict interpretation of "reasonable doubt," but there's just way too much circumstantial evidence here. The evidence to me points that AH was likely the actual murderer, but I find it beyond reasonable doubt that he was at the scene of the crime and participated in some fashion. When placed in the context of everything else presented, the text and the money delivery are really damning. Doesn't help that Jenkins previously lied under oath about the hush money.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,483
The 718
I have learned this:

1. Your clients love it when you yell at the judge; they think it means you're passionate.

2. Yelling at the judge is a bad idea.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,483
The 718
crystalline said:
 
Yeah, I was wondering if this was strategic somehow on the part of Jenkins' lawyer, or the defense.
Or whether Jenkins' lawyer is just a poor planner.
I would have to think its a Hail Mary to try and disrupt a bad flow.

If I were the judge I would say: "counselor, please explain what you have scheduled for Monday that's more important than this."
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
I had it on in the background so I may slightly distort this.

The attorney said she had a federal trial on Monday. She started ripping into the prosecution for how long they took on direct. MacCauley interrupted her with "Objection" and they talked over each other for a while before the judge sustained. The attorney demanded the judge call the judge of the other trial to explain.

Judge Harsh apologized for the unexpected delay due to juror questioning this morning, but said this witness might have been expected to go two days. She said she'd have her *clerk* call the other judge's *clerk*. She also said the court had made concessions already for this attorney, suspending one witness's testimony so Shayanna could testify first thing this morning. In my non expert view the attorney sounded slightly unhinged.

If Shayanna has immunity, is there danger to her for longer testimony, beyond effects on her family? I suppose her share of the family's wealth is at stake. I'm trying to figure out if the scheduling debate is an effort to protect her or her fiance.

Edit: Garsh. Autocorrect, not Freudian.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Ed Hillel said:
I'm glad MA has joint venture in this case, otherwise I think there's a chance he might have gotten away with this. As things stand now, I don't see how Hernandez gets off. I'd say I have a fairly strict interpretation of "reasonable doubt," but there's just way too much circumstantial evidence here. The evidence to me points that AH was likely the actual murderer, but I find it beyond reasonable doubt that he was at the scene of the crime and participated in some fashion. When placed in the context of everything else presented, the text and the money delivery are really damning. Doesn't help that Jenkins previously lied under oath about the hush money.
I suppose I need a clearer understanding if I'm a juror of what constitutes "participating in some fashion" and the actions which would fall under this guideline. I've missed parts of this like most of us here so excuse me if I've missed this part.....but can being there and also participating be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Aren't there scenarios where he could have been there and not necessarily participated but gave orders to his thugs to kill OL in which case we would need proof of these orders? And is that reasonable?
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
I think you need to start thinking more about what an average, actual juror requires - and further, is instructed to require - rather than what you yourself might need. I know you find it appalling that some of them may not be "young-middle aged, college educated regular people" but as noted, it's a feature of the system, not a fault.
 
His DNA is at the scene of a murder on a cigarette butt. He was there. Following that, three scenarios are at least somewhat reasonable: 
 
1. He pulled out a gun and shot him. 
2. He ordered his thugs to shoot him, which they did. 
3. His thugs flipped out and shot them on their own accord. 
 
When you add in all the circumstantial evidence that has been presented, the absolutely least likely of those three scenarios is #3. While we haven't heard the defense strategy as of yet, one would think we would have heard that alluded to or implied at this point in some kind of cross examination, no? If you concede that point, is there a true, tangible, legal difference between #1 and #2? Legit question to the lawyers here. And also to you as a juror? I understand there may be some kind of technicality as to the charges filed and guilt found between the two...
 
I asked before and you ignored it, but what is an example of the "a ha" moment that would convince you of his guilt, that would be able to get you beyond the point you haven't yet been able to broach by the mountain of circumstantial evidence laid down? I'm a 35 year old regular person with a college degree from Georgetown and I understand the difference between "reasonable doubt" and "incontrovertible proof". While I have yet to see the defense, I feel like the former has been established, while reserving the right to change my mind if the defense changes it for me with their argument. I feel like if the latter were in existence, there would not be a trial. 
 
IANAL and I haven't followed every word of testimony. I could very well be misguided on my stance. But I'm beyond confused at this point if you are just trying to play devils advocate or if your standards are really that high. This is not to say he won't get acquitted, because we've seen crazier shit. But it really seems you're just trying to play the doubter here. Or you watch much TV. 
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
HomeRunBaker said:
I suppose I need a clearer understanding if I'm a juror of what constitutes "participating in some fashion" and the actions which would fall under this guideline. I've missed parts of this like most of us here so excuse me if I've missed this part.....but can being there and also participating be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Aren't there scenarios where he could have been there and not necessarily participated but gave orders to his thugs to kill OL in which case we would need proof of these orders? And is that reasonable?
We haven't fully got there yet but what you're laying out, scenario number 3, is the least likely.

They werent hanging out in his basement and a gun went off. Lloyd was picked up in Boston in the middle of the night and driven to an isolated area in the middle of the night by three people with guns. He's shot numerous times and no one else is. Then we get all the stuff with the sister showing she wasn't really concerned her sisters boyfriend is dead and spends her time trying to clean it up.

At minimum AH went out of his way to get their friend in an isolated area to threaten him to keep quiet while at gunpoint in the middle of the night. IANAL so RR or someone needs to validate this but if Lloyd is murdered during AHs initial crime, threatening someone at gunpoint to conceal whatever he told him that night the text was referring to, then he's on the hook for the murder no matter if his boys just flipped out.
 

djhb20

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 7, 2004
1,887
10025
If I'm a juror, the defense better give me some reason why they were at this industrial park. These aren't teenager who need to go someplace to drink or smoke or something. At this point, from what I've read, the only reasonable reason for them to be there is to do something to OL.

So, unless they can explain that to me - like some evidence that they go there regularly (or places like there) for some reason - then with everything else, it seems like #3 is just not plausible.

They were there to kill or threaten OL. And from what I understand about the law, that means he's guilty of murder, whether he pulled the trigger (we'll never know), told the others to, or the others did it against his wishes, but he participated after the fact.
 

RhaegarTharen

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
2,754
Wilmington, MA
After reading the above comments, I've actually started to believe the prosecution did a better job w/ Shayanna than I originally thought.  I've gotten most of my updates from this thread, but I did listen in to her testimony for a while yesterday, and my thinking now is that the prosecution is setting up something along the lines of what djhb20 outlined above.  
 
Stuff about Aaron's smoking weed at home seemed like a weak attempt to get at his character (weed = illegal!) but now I'm thinking it was just to show that if the guys were hanging out that night why wouldn't they have gone back to the house/basement.  The biggest punch they landed (to me) was her actions after Aaron was taken into custody.  I mean - no matter what actually happened that night (up to and including Lloyd being shot by hobos/aliens/the gun accidentally going off) I cannot find a reasonable explanation for how she acted in running around the state essentially trying to help the other suspects avoid being picked up.  
 
To me, that's almost an "a-ha" moment right there.  I'm sure somebody could logically twist their way into finding a plausible reason that's innocent (or at least not as shady) for those actions - but I'm betting the mental gymnastics required to get there are too much of a stretch when combined with everything else we have on the case.  Maybe I've seen too many movies, but to me that's borderline criminal behavior no matter what.  Hell, rounding them up at the house and circling the wagons and lawyering up to all hell has much better optics that trying to sneak them out of the state - and I'd bet that TV/Movies have made that seem pretty "guilty' to the average American.  
 
I know little to nothing about the strategies of the actual legal process (although reading RR has been extremely insightful) but my guess is the prosecution is setting themselves up to withstand the defense pushing a "no motive/no hard proof" position on close. Maybe it's not a good idea for whatever reason, but I think if I was on the jury, I'd be pretty persuaded at this point by the prosecution that Hernandez was up to no good the night in question.  And if there was a reasonable alternative which exonerated him, what is it and how the hell does it make sense in light of all the additional facts?  
 
 
Side note: this may cause some of you to discount my thoughts above, but for those keeping score of reactions - I personally don't doubt Aaron's guilt for a second - but I grew up next to Bristol and am convinced his time at UF and in the NFL convinced him he was untouchable, and that he was living out this little fantasy of being Scarface w/ his boys from home.  In fact, I think that fits perfectly with the seedy side of Bristol.  A bunch of wannabe thugs playing at being really "hard".  Aaron makes it big and can afford to fund this dream - buying the drugs, illegal guns, flop houses, rental cars, burner phones, whatever.  Not hard to see how his being protected at school and by the NFL cash could lead to things escalating from drugs/guns level bullshit to a couple shootings to outright murder.  And this stuff (IMO) has all the hallmarks of somebody who has no fucking clue what they're doing but thinks/pretends/believes they do.  
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I'll be the first to admit I don't fully understand what is required to determine "reasonable doubt" and with the burden fully on the prosecution to convince me the juror shouldn't we play devils advocate until they do prove the case? As far as those option go how does anyone prove #2 occurred if nobody flips even if it did occur (which I feel truly is a strong possibility)

Or maybe my standards are too high on the prosecutor. One thing I will say to you guys is I'm not purposely being an ass.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
HomeRunBaker said:
I'll be the first to admit I don't fully understand what is required to determine "reasonable doubt" and with the burden fully on the prosecution to convince me the juror shouldn't we play devils advocate until they do prove the case? As far as those option go how does anyone prove #2 occurred if nobody flips even if it did occur (which I feel truly is a strong possibility)

Or maybe my standards are too high on the prosecutor. One thing I will say to you guys is I'm not purposely being an ass.
 
I don't think anyone is saying you are "purposely" being an ass, but you've proven quite clearly that you are not an "average" juror or at the very least you don't know what that term even means. Unless I am mistaking you with another poster, from the jump you have been proclaiming that he will walk (for whatever reason). At the very least, that labels you as not being "impartial", which obviously does not suit whatever ideal one has for a juror. Obviously that is concept is skewed a bit - being partial can work for either side depending on which direction the juror leans and they obviously aim for that in jury selection - but if we are going to ignore reality in one hypothetical we can't ignore it in another. 
 
Standards absolutely should be high on the prosecution, that's what our legal system is based on. But that does not mean that they need to 100%, without a doubt, prove that a person is guilty, down to a confession, video evidence, DNA, fingerprints, witnesses, forensics, ballistics, murder weapon with blood on it, etc need to prove it. Again, this is not Law and Order. Cases that have that kind of proof never go to trial - they get pled out to a lesser offense to save people time and money. As RR and many other lawyers here have stayed repeatedly, circumstantial evidence is what gets most people convicted. In and of itself, one piece cannot do that, but as it piles up, it becomes enough. Enough to convince the mind of a jury of peers and that is what the burden is for the prosecution. 
 
Again. For the third time now. What is the "a ha" moment you would need as a hypothetical juror on this case? What piece of evidence do you need to see or hear? Then after that, explain why you think AH's defense team would have gone to trial if the prosecution held that piece of evidence (ignoring outlier scenarios). 
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
HRB Can you please give us plausible examples of what you need to be able to rule him guilty? It'd help everyone understand what your burden of proof is in your mind.

You've been stating the same arguement for pages saying you aren't convinced. You've been asked at least 5 times by multiple people on what you need.
 

djhb20

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 7, 2004
1,887
10025
HomeRunBaker said:
I'll be the first to admit I don't fully understand what is required to determine "reasonable doubt" and with the burden fully on the prosecution to convince me the juror shouldn't we play devils advocate until they do prove the case? As far as those option go how does anyone prove #2 occurred if nobody flips even if it did occur (which I feel truly is a strong possibility)

Or maybe my standards are too high on the prosecutor. One thing I will say to you guys is I'm not purposely being an ass.
Even without #2, he can be guilty, though.

If they establish he was there with the 2 others and OL, and someone shot and killed OL, and then he participated after the fact (by leaving him there, covering it up, helping his friends escape, etc.), then he's not walking.

It's like knowingly driving the getaway car. You didn't do the actual act, but you're still guilty of doing it, so long as you knew what you were doing.

I'm not a lawyer, though, so I may be wrong.

But if what's holding you up is you think he was there but don't know if he pulled the trigger or told someone else too, even if #3 (in the context of they all went there to do something illegal to OL), isn't he still guilty? And if he became a part of it after, doesn't it not matter what they were planning on doing?

To me, unless the defense demonstrates with some reasonableness that it might've been all an accident and AH didn't know what happened and didn't want it to happen and then just panicked afterward, he's guilty. And even if he just panicked afterwards - I'm not sure of the statutes in MA - if there's enough evidence that he was actively participating in the crime after the shots, he's still guilty.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
HomeRunBaker said:
I'll be the first to admit I don't fully understand what is required to determine "reasonable doubt" and with the burden fully on the prosecution to convince me the juror shouldn't we play devils advocate until they do prove the case? As far as those option go how does anyone prove #2 occurred if nobody flips even if it did occur (which I feel truly is a strong possibility)

Or maybe my standards are too high on the prosecutor. One thing I will say to you guys is I'm not purposely being an ass.
You don't need to be a lawyer -- is it reasonable to doubt that AH committed murder? If not, then the prosecution has met its burden.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Papelbon said:
 
I don't think anyone is saying you are "purposely" being an ass, but you've proven quite clearly that you are not an "average" juror or at the very least you don't know what that term even means. Unless I am mistaking you with another poster, from the jump you have been proclaiming that he will walk (for whatever reason). At the very least, that labels you as not being "impartial", which obviously does not suit whatever ideal one has for a juror. Obviously that is concept is skewed a bit - being partial can work for either side depending on which direction the juror leans and they obviously aim for that in jury selection - but if we are going to ignore reality in one hypothetical we can't ignore it in another. 
 
Standards absolutely should be high on the prosecution, that's what our legal system is based on. But that does not mean that they need to 100%, without a doubt, prove that a person is guilty, down to a confession, video evidence, DNA, fingerprints, witnesses, forensics, ballistics, murder weapon with blood on it, etc need to prove it. Again, this is not Law and Order. Cases that have that kind of proof never go to trial - they get pled out to a lesser offense to save people time and money. As RR and many other lawyers here have stayed repeatedly, circumstantial evidence is what gets most people convicted. In and of itself, one piece cannot do that, but as it piles up, it becomes enough. Enough to convince the mind of a jury of peers and that is what the burden is for the prosecution. 
 
Again. For the third time now. What is the "a ha" moment you would need as a hypothetical juror on this case? What piece of evidence do you need to see or hear? Then after that, explain why you think AH's defense team would have gone to trial if the prosecution held that piece of evidence (ignoring outlier scenarios). 
Proof that he was there (which we have) AND participated/ordered the murder (which I don't have).

If AH was there (he was), didn't know a crime was about to be committed, and left with those who committed the crime would that be basis for a guilty verdict? This is different from AH participating in a crime and the murder occurring however doesn't the jury need evidence showing that he was involved in some way and not only just present?

Again maybe I missed certain parts of the trial but if your answer is "Yes, the jury will be directed to come back with Guilty if AH was only proven to be present and departed the scene with the actual murderer" then I'm on board with him going down for this.

Edit: Do you really believe that such a public case can possibly contain jurors without a predisposed position? Maybe if these people are living under rocks that's about it.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
I'm glossing over some nuances, and I'll gladly accept correction from the experts here, but I believe the prosecution needs to prove one of three things:
 
1. AH killed OL, or 
2. AH was part of a plan (conspiracy) to kill OL, or
3. AH was part of a plan to commit some other felony, and the 3am trip to the industrial park was part of that plan.
 
Unless there's an unexpected reversal or the defense presents an affirmative case that raises doubts, I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that either 1 or 2 is true. Of course, my judgment is colored by the ominous tone of OL's text ("just so you know"); it's hard to say how I'd feel if I didn't know about that.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
 
HomeRunBaker, on 28 Mar 2015 - 3:05 PM, said:
Proof that he was there (which we have) AND participated/ordered the murder (which I don't have).
 
If AH was there (he was), didn't know a crime was about to be committed, and left with those who committed the crime would that be basis for a guilty verdict? This is different from AH participating in a crime and the murder occurring however doesn't the jury need evidence showing that he was involved in some way and not only just present?
 
Again maybe I missed certain parts of the trial but if your answer is "Yes, the jury will be directed to come back with Guilty if AH was only proven to be present and departed the scene with the actual murderer" then I'm on board with him going down for this.
 
Edit: Do you really believe that such a public case can possibly contain jurors without a predisposed position? Maybe if these people are living under rocks that's about it.
 
 
This is the MA instruction for Joint Venture.  http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/docs/model-jury-instructions-homicide.pdf  It's what the jury will be read - they then apply the facts in evidence to these instructions.  I bolded what seems most relevant to the ongoing discussion.
The Commonwealth is not required to prove that the defendant himself performed the act that caused the victim's death.21 However, to establish that a defendant is guilty of murder [or voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter], the Commonwealth must prove two things beyond a reasonable doubt.
First, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant knowingly participated in the commission of the crime [identify the crime if needed to avoid confusion].
Second, the Commonwealth must prove that he did so with the intent required to commit the crime.22
 
Such knowing participation by the defendant may take many forms. It may take the form of personally committing the acts that constitute the crime, or of aiding or assisting another in those acts.23 It may take the form of the defendant asking or encouraging another person to commit the crime, or of helping to plan the commission of the crime.24 Alternatively, it may take the form of the defendant agreeing to stand by at, or near, the scene of the crime to act as a lookout, or to provide aid or assistance in committing the crime, or in escaping, if such help becomes necessary.25 An agreement to help if needed does not need to be made through a formal or explicit written or oral advance plan or agreement; it is enough if the defendant and at least one other person consciously acted together before or during the crime with the intent of making the crime succeed.26
 
The Commonwealth must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, at the time the defendant knowingly participated in the crime, 
[identify the crime if needed to avoid confusion], he possessed or shared the intent required for that crime.27 28 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
 
Mere knowledge that a crime is to be committed is not sufficient to convict the defendant.31 The Commonwealth must also prove more than mere association with the perpetrator of the crime, either before or after its commission.32 It must also prove more than a failure to take appropriate steps to prevent the commission of the crime.33
 
Mere presence at the scene of the crime is not enough to find a defendant guilty. Presence alone does not establish a defendant's knowing participation in the crime, even if a person knew about the intended crime in advance and took no steps to prevent it. To find a defendant guilty, there must be proof that the defendant intentionally participated in some fashion in committing that particular crime and that he had or shared the intent required to commit the crime. It is not enough to show that the defendant simply was present when the crime was committed or that he knew about it in advance.34
 
Where an element of an offense is that a person who committed the crime possessed, carried, or used a weapon, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt either that the defendant himself possessed a weapon, or that the defendant knew that a person with whom he participated in the commission of the crime was armed with a weapon.35 However, mere knowledge that a participant in the crime was armed is not sufficient to hold the defendant liable for the acts of that participant. The Commonwealth must also prove that the defendant knowingly participated in the commission of the crime, with the intent required to commit the crime.36
 
 
Go to page 36 to find the instructions for what Murder is.  There are also other lesser forms of wrongful killing, such as voluntary/involuntary manslaughter (killing in sudden passion), that don't require such things as premeditation, and Felony murder (killing during the commission of another crime). 
 
IMO the state can effectively argue up to First Degree Murder (premeditated), but they should have Joint Venture/Involuntary Manslaughter in the bag.  Unless something odd happens the jury will most likely have the ability to choose from any of the wrongful killing crimes applied through Joint Venture.  Sometimes the sides will agree on one wrongful killing crime (forcing the jury to make an all or nothing decision).  I don't know how MA law addresses that issue.  
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Do you think there will be a manslaughter instruction given in this case? From what I've seen, it seems facts would only support three outcomes: guilty of murder 1, guilty of murder 2, or acquittal.

The evidence that AH participated in a cover-up after the shooting is so strong that I wonder if his attorneys will concede that he was an accessory after-the-fact, and shoot for reasonable doubt on foreknowledge.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
HomeRunBaker said:
I'll be the first to admit I don't fully understand what is required to determine "reasonable doubt" and with the burden fully on the prosecution to convince me the juror shouldn't we play devils advocate until they do prove the case? As far as those option go how does anyone prove #2 occurred if nobody flips even if it did occur (which I feel truly is a strong possibility)

Or maybe my standards are too high on the prosecutor. One thing I will say to you guys is I'm not purposely being an ass.
 
And this is what the jury will be read regarding "reasonable doubt"
 
 
PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
[This instruction must be given verbatim]
 
The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charge(s) made against him (her). What is proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

The term is often used and probably pretty well understood, though it is not easily defined. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, for everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. A charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you have compared and considered all of the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, that the charge is true. When we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs -- based solely on the evidence that has been put before you in this case.

I have told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until he or she is proved guilty, and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. If you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted.

It is not enough for the Commonwealth to establish a probability, even a strong probability, that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than not guilty. That is not enough. Instead, the evidence must convince you of the defendant's guilt to a reasonable and moral certainty; a certainty that convinces your understanding and satisfies your reason and judgment as jurors who are sworn to act conscientiously on the evidence.

This is what we mean by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.   
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
maufman said:
Do you think there will be a manslaughter instruction given in this case? From what I've seen, it seems facts would only support three outcomes: guilty of murder 1, guilty of murder 2, or acquittal.

The evidence that AH participated in a cover-up after the shooting is so strong that I wonder if his attorneys will concede that he was an accessory after-the-fact, and shoot for reasonable doubt on foreknowledge.
 
I really don't know about the manslaughter instruction.  I'm guessing the defense will float the "Wallace/Ortiz just randomly shot OL, AH had no idea what was going on, and AH fled in a panic" defense.  I don't see what else they have at this point.  They could then argue no prior intent/no plan, so no joint venture.  
 
Granted, that scenario is strongly cast into doubt by any number of things, meaning the jury can return with a higher offense.  However, based on the fact that the evidence *could* support that theory, and a jury *could* make such a finding, the defense may ask for manslaughter to be read to the jury (or it may be mandatory that it's read - I don't know how it works in MA).
 
Those "any number of things" don't have to be smoking guns per se:  
 
- The bugging out about OL's new knowledge of something
- The efforts to get Ortiz and Wallace to be present to pick OL up
- Driving OL to AH's neighborhood (no late night party at the flophouse)
- The physical facts of the shooting (no hobos)
- The immediate arrival, post shooting, of the 3 at AH's house.
- AH's reactions to the police
- AH's instructions to SJ to give Ortiz and Wallace money so they could flee
- SJ's likely distraction of evidence on AH's suggestion
- AH's actions in getting his aunt not to testify to the grand jury (trust fund)
 
While a lot of these things happen *after* the shooting, relevant instructions allow the jury to apply them to the jury's finding of AH's state of mind *before* the shooting. 
 
Two other relevant instructions:
 
 
INFERENCES
An inference is a permissible deduction that you may make from evidence that you have accepted as believable.

Inferences are things you do every day: little steps in reasoning, in which you take some known information, apply your experience in life to it, and then draw a conclusion.
You may draw an inference even if it is not necessary or inescapable, so long as it is reasonable and warranted by the evidence, and all the evidence and reasonable inferences in the case together prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
 
 
 
 
CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT
You have heard evidence suggesting that the defendant:
 
Here outline the nature of the evidence, e.g.:
may have fled after he (she) discovered that he (she) was about to be (arrested for) (charged with) the offense for which he (she) is now on trial.
may have intentionally made certain false statements (before) (after) his (her) arrest.
may have used a false name to conceal his (her) identity.
may have intentionally tried to (conceal) (destroy) (falsify) evidence in this case.
may have intentionally attempted to (intimidate or coerce) (bribe) a witness whom he (she) believed would testify against him (her).
 
If the Commonwealth has proved that the defendant did  , you may consider whether such actions indicate feelings of guilt by the defendant and whether, in turn, such feelings of guilt might tend to show actual guilt on (this charge) (these charges). You are not required to draw such inferences, and you should not do so unless they appear to be reasonable in light of all the circumstances of this case.
If you decide that such inferences are reasonable, it will be up to you to decide how much importance to give them. But you should always remember that there may be numerous reasons why an innocent person might do such things. Such conduct does not necessarily reflect feelings of guilt. Please also bear in mind that a person having feelings of guilt is not necessarily guilty in fact, for such feelings are sometimes found in innocent people.
Finally, remember that, standing alone, such evidence is never enough by itself to convict a person of a crime. You may not find the defendant guilty on such evidence alone, but you may consider it in your deliberations, along with all the other evidence.
 
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
HomeRunBaker said:
Edit: Do you really believe that such a public case can possibly contain jurors without a predisposed position? Maybe if these people are living under rocks that's about it.
 
 
First, I think if you walked out onto the street and asked the first 100 people that walked by "do you know who Aaron Hernandez is?" some number less than 100 people would say "Yes." You can debate how many less, but if you agree that that number is greater than 1, than your argument falls apart.
 
Further, knowledge of the case because it's been in the press does not equal a predisposed position. This is the point of jury selection. Each side examines members of a randomly selected group and attempts to discern those with predisposed positions and eliminate them from the pool. 
 
Not everyone is a fan of the NEP. Not everyone watches the news everyday or reads the paper. Not everyone has time to delve into the details on their own before or even after they were chosen for jury duty. Not everyone gives a shit or has the ability to give a shit about what happens outside their immediate life. Further, some people are actually able to keep an impartial mind and allow the legal system to do it's job because they believe in the process and their civic duty means something to them. 
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
maufman said:
The evidence that AH participated in a cover-up after the shooting is so strong that I wonder if his attorneys will concede that he was an accessory after-the-fact, and shoot for reasonable doubt on foreknowledge.
 
I wonder how that jives with their opening.  Did they open not knowing SJ would testify to paying off Wallace and Ortiz?  
 
Juries really really don't like it when the Defense changes horses midstream.  There's no instruction or rule on it and it's not improper, but the jury will be thinking - Shit, they said the guy was innocent and more or less framed by the police and that this was a ridiculous case.  Now they're saying, mostly because they're backed into a corner, that AH was there, and did cover things up, but he didn't know about anything beforehand?  Please.  We've wasted four months of our lives looking to things the Defense said would be huge problems.  
 
I spoke upthread about the dangers of committing to a defense theory that goes right up to the moment of the shooting and stops. This may be coming home to bite the defense.  If you look like a fraud to the jury, and you haven't delivered anything at all like what you promised, are they really going to pay attention to a "marginal" argument of yours in closing?  
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
crystalline said:
I had it on in the background so I may slightly distort this.

The attorney said she had a federal trial on Monday. She started ripping into the prosecution for how long they took on direct. MacCauley interrupted her with "Objection" and they talked over each other for a while before the judge sustained. The attorney demanded the judge call the judge of the other trial to explain.

Judge Harsh apologized for the unexpected delay due to juror questioning this morning, but said this witness might have been expected to go two days. She said she'd have her *clerk* call the other judge's *clerk*. She also said the court had made concessions already for this attorney, suspending one witness's testimony so Shayanna could testify first thing this morning. In my non expert view the attorney sounded slightly unhinged.

If Shayanna has immunity, is there danger to her for longer testimony, beyond effects on her family? I suppose her share of the family's wealth is at stake. I'm trying to figure out if the scheduling debate is an effort to protect her or her fiance.

Edit: Garsh. Autocorrect, not Freudian.
 
Skipped this issue upthread.   FWIW, I'm not aware of any right SJ has to have her attorney present while she's being questioned under oath in court, pursuant to a legitimate subpoena.  SJ has immunity in MA.  SJ can invoke the 5th herself (for a potential federal or other jurisdictional crime), but usually witnesses on the stand are not allowed to take a break and to review their testimony with anyone.  Given SJ's situation it's certainly prudent and advisable that her attorney be present - but that's on her and her attorney to arrange.
 
Perhaps there's some MA rule or general right I'm unaware of, but in the absence of such a right, it's awfully bold/foolish for her attorney to get aggressive over this. 
 

gtmtnbiker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,725
Papelbon's Poutine said:
 
 
First, I think if you walked out onto the street and asked the first 100 people that walked by "do you know who Aaron Hernandez is?" some number less than 100 people would say "Yes." You can debate how many less, but if you agree that that number is greater than 1, than your argument falls apart.
 
My wife is one such person. She asked me yesterday what I was listening to on Friday and I explained that I was listening to the Aaron Hernandez trial. She didn't know who he was and asked if he was a baseball player.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
GeorgeCostanza said:
Not much discussion of your interests in the gtmtnbiker household? Or has she mastered the selective hearing tune out when sports come up skill that my ex had?
AH wasn't an All-Pro like TB12 or Gronk. I suspect a lot of us have SOs who didn't know who AH was until the media circus just prior to his arrest. I'm not sure how anyone living in MA lived through that circus without learning who AH was. I didn't pay attention during jury selection, but I assume the judge didn't disqualify jurors simply because they had heard about the case.

I forget if we talked upthread about the selection bias in the jury pool in high-profile cases like this one. I'm not sure what the demographics of a subgroup of people who don't consume much news looks like, nor do I know whether the skew is likely to favor the prosecution or the defense. I'd be interested what RR, hittery, and our other resident experts think. (I'd also be interested in any objective studies that may exist, but I'm aware that any such study would be severely hampered by SSS.)
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,184
Washington
If I were called for voir dire on a high-profile case, I would have to admit that I get 90% of my news from a Red Sox message board. That would be embarrassing!
Not as embarrassing for you as it would be for me.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
EvilEmpire said:
Not as embarrassing for you as it would be for me.
 
That's a fun game.  Which SoSHer in what scenario would result in the most embarrassing outing of message board behaviors?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.