Like, say, if you had a sword and posed with it for a photographer?JimBoSox9 said:
That's a fun game. Which SoSHer in what scenario would result in the most embarrassing outing of message board behaviors?
Like, say, if you had a sword and posed with it for a photographer?JimBoSox9 said:
That's a fun game. Which SoSHer in what scenario would result in the most embarrassing outing of message board behaviors?
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?
Jnai said:Damn. Cold.
And right before then, AH is repeatedly calling her from a phone that is not his (a burner phone in reality). Its just a great timeline.Rovin Romine said:Jenkins testified she put the box in a dumpster. She does not remember where the dumpster was (or what town it was in).
knuck said:I'm pretty sure she admitted to asking AH, "Did you do it?" the night he got home from the police station.
I've been half-paying attention this morning, so I could be wrong.
Rovin Romine said:Also, SJ took out $800 from an ATM during the box trip. She can't recall why. She testified she paid the housekeepers with a check though (and the check was shown to the jury.)
(I think the implication is that she gave the gunbox and $800 cash to someone when she was out on her trip. I'm not sure the prosecutor opened that up for the jury.)
We're now onto the search warrant for the shoes issue.
SJ says she "does not recognize" the size 13 Retro Air Jordans allegedly worn by AH during the shooting (shoes are in a photo of AH's closet).
Joshv02 said:Holy shit - is the prosecution implying that the defense counsel destroyed evidence? I mean, right after a series of questions about the "box", the questions talk about "three pairs of shoes" leaving the house, and what did the defense attorneys do when they where there.
Would it surprise anyone if AH owned somewhere around 100 pairs of shoes? Couldn't the cross examination have a line of questioning like "In your estimation, how many pairs of shoes did AH own?"Rovin Romine said:SJ is doing a major waffle on the shoes. She does not know anything about any shoes, she can't say if AH wore any particular kind of shoes, she can't say what happened to the shoes (thus far).
(This is the kind of thing that can sink a witness - they think they're "helping" by committing to a "I don't know" scenario, but it's transparently obstructionist and false. We'll see how/if the prosecution capitalizes on this - it may have to wait for rebuttal.)
steveluck7 said:Would it surprise anyone if AH owned somewhere around 100 pairs of shoes? Couldn't the cross examination have a line of questioning like "In your estimation, how many pairs of shoes did AH own?"
then "do you know the style of each of those pairs?"
Would that mitigate any damage she might be doing by answering the way she is right now?
norm from cheers said:I am disappointed the Prosecutor didnt get more specific as to why she felt she had to cover the box with clothes in the bag. That was the golden bullet right there. Can he sum up at the end of her direct with that and not remembering where she disposed of the box to drive home how evasive SK is?
Rovin Romine said:Cross on in background - lots of SJ/AH early relationship stuff. She's clearly happy to respond to the defense questions. This is going slow.
Rovin Romine said:Shit, there it is again.
Sultan Rankin Fee or an associate come to your home after the shoe conversation?
4 times.
Was anything recovered by them or their agents?
Objection. Sustained.
Edit: I'm not sure what to think of this. If I was on defense, I'd probably look into this being the basis for a mistrial, if I wanted to move for one. It's improper to suggest the defense did something like this. (Unless they did.) At the very least I'd ask for a "dressing down" instruction from the judge to the jury explaining there was nothing improper, consultation is normal, etc.
If the defense actually did something like this then they're likely in deep deep trouble.
Shelterdog said:
In your experience do jurors responds negatively to individuals who are eager to help the defense but not the prosecution--and is it different for witnesses who help out the prosecution but fight the defense?
bosoxsue said:
Does this point toward the earlier maxim that was brought up about never asking a question if you don't know the answer? Perhaps the prosecution has heard of some hijinks, although it seems pretty bold to go down that road.
Rovin Romine said:
Sort of. The maxim is more about getting sucker punched with an answer you weren't expecting. (Q: "What were you thinking?" A: "I was thinking your client beat up 4 other people, threatened me, and was always bragging about the time he did in jail.")
Re this issue, you can, as an attorney, get in big trouble if you ask a question which has no basis in fact. The classic "When did you stop beating your wife?" question, when there's no basis to believe the guy beat his wife at all. Depending on the question (and context) you're looking at anything from a reprimand from the judge, to a mistrial, to a reprimand from the bar (license loss or suspension) although the last would take some doing.
Here, they shouldn't have asked unless they had a factual basis to believe that happened.
lithos2003 said:
Interesting that you point this out (emphasis bolded). Is it possible that they have enough to feel like this is a strong possibility, thus knowing that if AH's counsel ever called them out on it they would have an excuse to dive deeper? Which would then mean that AH's counsel would never call them out, etc etc.
Rovin Romine said:Uh. Direct over. That ended with a whimper. Unless the redirect is good, this seems like an enormous missed opportunity. Maybe they got a lot out, maybe their hands were tied by the judge, but wow.
Now on cross.
How does this compare to a lawyer advising their client on a cleanup? Say, if the attorneys came over, so some issues and told Hernandez that he better bring in a cleaner her trusts to dispose of some shoes (etc)? Does that fall under the scope of "advising a client"?Rovin Romine said:
Yep. There's also an issue regarding defense counsel's legitimate scope of representation, which the prosecution can't impugn at trial, in front of the jury. However, "removing" evidence related to a crime is a great way for an attorney to get in major trouble (disbarred, independent criminal charges), so it's a pretty damn serious thing to suggest, even obliquely.
norm from cheers said:I guess I was wrong that NFL players are tested during the off season for drugs/peds et al.. AH partied and smoked like a rock star.
Thanks for the knowledge. I always wondered why the NFLPA didn't push back harder on testing for recreational drugs (especially pot, which isn't even arguably performance enhancing). I guess I know the answer -- the players would rather use their leverage on issues that matter than help guys who can't abstain from recreational drugs for a month or two per year.NortheasternPJ said:
NFL players are only tested once a year during training camp for recreational drugs unless they're in the Drug Program. Which makes it shocking they're ever caught since you know when the test is, you know what's tested for, then you are free for a year.
PED's are another story. This is what caught Wes Welker up. He was doing Molly laced with amphetamines I believe (or maybe it is one). They argued it was recreational, the NFL said it was a PED due to the amphetamines.
CheapSeats said:How does this compare to a lawyer advising their client on a cleanup? Say, if the attorneys came over, so some issues and told Hernandez that he better bring in a cleaner her trusts to dispose of some shoes (etc)? Does that fall under the scope of "advising a client"?
Rovin Romine said:
That's too broad a question to answer (not that's it's a *bad* question). I think the jury's response is more about the crime, the jury, the witness's demeanor, the particular testimony, etc., rather than a pro-defense/prosecution question.
FWIW, I think juries are pretty good at getting a witness's potential biases, if they're brought out. Night and day performances for one side v. the other are universally considered shady. Again, though, the attorney has to bring that out fully - pointing out that courtesy is the "floor" for the emotional exchange between the witness and the hostile party, but the factual exchange should be just that - facts. Lying, coloring, spinning, omitting, covering up, telling patently ridiculous stories - none of this should happen after the witness took an oath to tell the truth, whole truth and nothing but. The witness shouldn't invade the fact finding provence of the jury. The witness should help all (including the jury) not just one side or another. Etc. But it all depends on what the witness actually *did* on the stand.
If you can't raise the issue in court, how do you investigate and determine whether the opposing counsel did something like this?Rovin Romine said:Shit, there it is again.
Sultan Rankin Fee or an associate come to your home after the shoe conversation?
4 times.
Was anything recovered by them or their agents?
Objection. Sustained.
Edit: I'm not sure what to think of this. If I was on defense, I'd probably look into this being the basis for a mistrial, if I wanted to move for one. It's improper to suggest the defense did something like this. (Unless they did.) At the very least I'd ask for a "dressing down" instruction from the judge to the jury explaining there was nothing improper, consultation is normal, etc.
If the defense actually did something like this then they're likely in deep deep trouble.
SumnerH said:If you can't raise the issue in court, how do you investigate and determine whether the opposing counsel did something like this?
I get that it's super-sensitive, but at the same time when you're looking at how evidence left the building it seems pretty fundamental that you start by looking at everyone who went in and out of the building--even lawyers.
Joshv02 said:Personally, I think this is very effective -- they used the fiance to paint the timeline/picture, then they destroyed her credibility for all things where there are no backup documents (e.g., I assumed pot in the box) where she didn't already say the same thing on Friday.
FelixMantilla said:
FelixMantilla said: