Hernandez convicted of first-degree murder; found deceased in his cell. (2 Viewers)

[PinkydaPimp]

I have been listening to the defense argument. Its simple, but its reasonable. Casting doubt on the experts and the police department to throw a wrench in the circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has some work to do, and they better keep it very simple for the jury.

 

[RUSF18]

I have been listening to the defense argument. Its simple, but its reasonable. Casting doubt on the experts and the police department to throw a wrench in the circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has some work to do, and they better keep it very simple for the jury.

"Reasonable", as in, the other guys were on PCP which is why they murdered Lloyd and Hernandez didn't know about it (to get around joint venture) despite them both acting very calm on video right after the murder?

 

[Anarchy99]

What role does the judge have in explaining the joint venture law to the jury? Back when this case was developing, I heard several legal types on radio and tv explain that to avoid being clumped into the co-conspirator category under the joint venture rules, a potential defendant had to immediately come forward, distance him or herself from the other candidates, explain what happened, and fully cooperate with law enforcement and the authorities to prosecute the culprits.

Clearly AH did none of those things, and the talk at the time was that you couldn't take two years of being an uncooperative suspect and then claim that someone else did it. I haven't been following the case like a hawk. Has this point come out at all in the trial?

 

[BigJim®]

I haven't been following the trial, but seems like a PCP-based defense is contrary to he had nothing to do with this. On its face it sounds like a diminished capacity defense.

 

[RUSF18]

What role does the judge have in explaining the joint venture law to the jury? Back when this case was developing, I heard several legal types on radio and tv explain that to avoid being clumped into the co-conspirator category under the joint venture rules, a potential defendant had to immediately come forward, distance him or herself from the other candidates, explain what happened, and fully cooperate with law enforcement and the authorities to prosecute the culprits.

Clearly AH did none of those things, and the talk at the time was that you couldn't take two years of being an uncooperative suspect and then claim that someone else did it. I haven't been following the case like a hawk. Has this point come out at all in the trial?

I'm not sure, but the McCann synopsis that someone posted yesterday mentioned three key components of the law and "come forward immediately" wasn't one of them. I also remember what you're talking about, but haven't heard that since...unless McCann left that out for some reason.

edit: link again http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/04/03/aaron-hernandez-trial-analysis-conclusion-nears

and the relevant part I mentioned:

Massachusetts law permits what are known as “joint venture convictions.” In them, the defendant is convicted of a crime even if he is not the “principal” actor who carried out the crime. Precedent from Massachusetts courts indicates the following three elements are needed for a joint venture conviction of Hernandez:

1. Hernandez was present at the scene of Lloyd’s murder.

2. Hernandez had clear knowledge that Wallace or Ortiz intended to kill Lloyd and that Lloyd’s shooter (Wallace or Ortiz) had the murder weapon with him.

3. Hernandez was willing and available to help Wallace or Ortiz commit Lloyd’s murder. This is usually shown by the joint venturer actively helping the shooter, such as obtaining the gun used to perform the murder or driving the getaway car.

Jurors are likely inclined to find the first and third of these three elements exist: Hernandez seemed to be present at the crime scene and Hernandez appears to have provided assistance to the shooter (for example, evidence suggests Hernandez drove the car and Hernandez may have played a key role in obtaining the gun).

It is less clear, however, whether Hernandez knew that Wallace or Ortiz would shoot Lloyd, or that Hernandez wanted Lloyd’s death. Along those lines, it is plausible that Wallace or Ortiz killed Lloyd without Hernandez’s permission or support and that Hernandez’s wrongful conduct was in helping to cover up a crime, which would not qualify as joint venture murder but rather the crime of accessory after the fact (Hernandez does not face that charge). Prosecutors, however, will tell jurors in closing arguments that Hernandez was the boss. They’ll insist that Hernandez called the shots and that no one would have shot Lloyd without Hernandez’s blessing

I haven't been following the trial, but seems like a PCP-based defense is contrary to he had nothing to do with this. On its face it sounds like a diminished capacity defense.

Not sure if I'm misreading what you're saying, but I don't think the defense is that Hernandez was on PCP...but that the other two were. Which means they were acting irrationally and crazy when they killed Lloyd, which means it wasn't planned, which is what Hernandez needs to get past the critical joint venture law.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

It doesn't sound like the defense did enough to deserve a rest.

I thought the same thing...When asked they should have just said from a seated position, "No Judge we have no closing argument, the defense rests" .

 

[Bob Magaw]

Yeah, the PCP not a diminished capacity defense, a blame it on the other guy gambit.

Florio from PFT (again, he was a practicing attorney, not sure if in criminal law), raises some questions if the PCP argument is a strong one, is it something the defense felt they had to do because of the mountain of circumstantial evidence pointing to AH's guilt, and could it backfire on the defense. He highlights whether the jury will employ common sense in thinking there could be any reason (falling within the REASONABLE doubt threshold) that the mystery box was thrown in a random dumpster, other than that it contained the murder weapon.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/04/07/hernandez-defense-relies-on-bizarre-pcp-argument/

Hernandez defense relies on bizarre PCP argument

The case-in-chief presented by the prosecution in the first Aaron Hernandez murder case included 131 witnesses. The first of only three witnesses presented by Hernandez showed that his lawyers will put plenty of eggs into a fairly bizarre basket.

At closing argument, Hernandez’s lawyers will attempt to show that reasonable doubt as to his guilt exists because it’s possible that Carlos Ortiz and/or Ernest Wallace killed Odin Lloyd in a fit of rage induced by ingestion of PCP.

Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! Sports explains why the testimony of Dr. David Greenblatt possibly did more harm than good, thanks to a skillful cross examination that made the effort to create reasonable doubt seem like spitballs of speculation aimed at sticking to the walls of the jury room, giving those inclined to acquit Hernandez a plausible basis for doing so. Greenblatt admitted that he doesn’t know if Wallace and/or Ortiz had taken PCP and that it would be impossible to know it without a toxicology report (or without testimony from Wallace and/or Ortiz that they had taken PCP). Greenblatt also admitted that it would be impossible to know if they’d suffered PCP-induced psychosis that resulted in the shooting of Lloyd.

Greenblatt also admitted that drinking alcohol can lead to violent acts, which as Wetzel notes dovetails with testimony from Hernandez’s fiancée that Hernandez was drunk that night.

The decision to call Greenblatt shows that Hernandez’s lawyers feel compelled to introduce an alternative explanation for a mountain of circumstantial evidence that points to Hernandez committing the murder personally or being sufficiently involved in a joint venture to be culpable. If the only alternative explanation is that the other two men in the car with Hernandez and Lloyd killed Lloyd in a fit of PCP-related psychosis without any evidence that the two men had taken PCP, Hernandez’s lawyers would have been better off ignoring that angle and harping at closing arguments on the notion that there’s still no murder weapon and no proof of a motive to kill Lloyd, even though proof of motive isn’t technically required.

Thanks to Greenblatt’s testimony, the jury may now be even more inclined to convict Hernandez without a specific motive, embracing the notion that Hernandez killed Lloyd in a fit of drunken rage — especially if the jurors apply common sense to undisputed evidence that Hernandez instructed his fiancée to get rid of a mystery box not by throwing it in the trash at their home but by throwing it in some random dumpster.

 

[fantasycurse42]

I've followed enough of the case to form an opinion of guilty... Just on the evidence presented.

I think the prosecution did a somewhat ####ty job, but I think the defense wasn't anything special either. I'd be highly surprised by anything that wasn't a short deliberation and a guilty verdict.

Supposedly the evidence in the other double murder case is just as strong... Hard to see any scenario where he doesn't spend the rest of his life in jail, which is where a sick sociopath murdered belongs.

 

[Bob Magaw]

The article cited in PFT/Florio's article, giving more detail, and raises a few insightful questions about how the "PCP defense" in several places strains rational credulity to and beyond the breaking point.

Excerpts - Bomberg showed lengthy home surveillance video of Wallace and Ortiz from that night where they casually hang around Hernandez's rental car in the driveway and later in his living room. They look perfectly normal.

In one sequence, when the three pull up to the house at 3:25 a.m., just moments after Lloyd was allegedly murdered nearby, Wallace and Ortiz wait by the garage door as Hernandez turns his back and reaches back into the car. It constitutes odd and very trusting behavior if Hernandez had just witnessed one of these men flip out in a drug rage and randomly shoot Lloyd six times.

"Doctor, would you turn your back on someone who just had an episode of PCP-induced violent psychosis?" Bomberg asked.

Judge E. Susan Garsh immediately sustained a defense objection and had the question officially struck from the record. The moment was powerful nonetheless.

Also - The following night, while safely inside a local police station where he was being questioned, Hernandez instructed his fiancée, with their eight-month-old daughter in tow, to meet Wallace and Ortiz in the middle of the night at a location off an interstate. There she was to provide them with money; she handed over $500.

That, once again, is a curious request to make if he feared one or both of the men were capable of a PCP-fueled murderous rage. Who sends his fiancée and child, flush with cash, to meet those kinds of people? The prosecution will no doubt use this to show Hernandez had complete comfort and trust in Wallace and Ortiz, aiding their fleeing from the region.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/aaron-hernandez-trial--defense-hinges-on-pcp-induced--psychosis-212558603.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma

Aaron Hernandez trial: Defense hinges on PCP-induced 'psychosis'

By Dan Wetzel17 hours ago Yahoo Sports
FALL RIVER, Mass. – James Sultan stood behind a defense table here inside Courtroom 7 in Bristol County Superior Court on Monday afternoon and paused dramatically.

"At this time, your honor and members of the jury, the defendant, Mr. Hernandez, rests," Sultan said.

The murder trial of former New England Patriots star Aaron Hernandez that began Super Bowl week in January is finally grinding to a close, after the defense called just three witnesses across just a few hours Monday – in contrast to 131 prosecution witnesses stretched over 39 days of testimony. That's where the defense put in most of its work, in cross-examination.

The case now moves to dueling closing arguments on Tuesday before a jury of 12 randomly selected from 10 women and five men (three will wind up as alternates) begin deliberations on whether Hernandez was responsible for killing Odin Lloyd on June 17, 2013, in an undeveloped industrial area near Hernandez's North Attleboro, Mass., home.

Essentially, Hernandez's fate will rest on whether co-council Michael Fee can provide a powerful enough closing argument to convince the jury that the Commonwealth did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The main assertion of the defense is that there is nothing to defend, hence the limited defense, because Hernandez is innocent and the state didn't meet the burden of proving otherwise.

The brief defense offerings here Monday yielded little and likely shouldn't have included the first witness, Dr. David Greenblatt, a "PCP expert" who wound up aiding the prosecution more than Hernandez.

Greenblatt was brought in to bolster the defense theory that PCP can cause violent psychosis. Previous testimony suggested that co-conspirators Ernest Wallace and Carlos Ortiz, who were with Hernandez and Lloyd at the time of the murder, might have smoked marijuana laced with PCP in the days before the murder. Thus one or both of them may have unpredictably acted out and killed Lloyd.

The idea is that Hernandez was not a willing or knowing participant in the crime, which is all that is needed to convict him under Massachusetts' joint venture law. He also may have been fearful of his own life due to the PCP rage, which would explain why he allowed them to stay at his house that night and much of the next day.

It didn't work out very well though.

On cross-examination, prosecutor Patrick Bomberg got Greenblatt to acknowledge he had no idea if Wallace and/or Ortiz were on PCP and without a toxicology report such a determination was impossible. Even if they were, Greenblatt testified, it would be impossible to know if they had suffered a fit of psychosis and, further, if that hypothetical psychosis led to a violent act.

"The presence of PCP doesn't necessarily lead to violence?" Bomberg asked.

"That's correct," Greenblatt said.

Bomberg showed lengthy home surveillance video of Wallace and Ortiz from that night where they casually hang around Hernandez's rental car in the driveway and later in his living room. They look perfectly normal.

In one sequence, when the three pull up to the house at 3:25 a.m., just moments after Lloyd was allegedly murdered nearby, Wallace and Ortiz wait by the garage door as Hernandez turns his back and reaches back into the car. It constitutes odd and very trusting behavior if Hernandez had just witnessed one of these men flip out in a drug rage and randomly shoot Lloyd six times.

"Doctor, would you turn your back on someone who just had an episode of PCP-induced violent psychosis?" Bomberg asked.

Judge E. Susan Garsh immediately sustained a defense objection and had the question officially struck from the record. The moment was powerful nonetheless.

Then there was Bomberg getting Greenblatt to testify that while alcohol can lead to violent acts, just smoking marijuana does not.

"I don't know any evidence that marijuana causes violent behavior," Greenblatt said.

Hernandez's fiancée, Shayanna Jenkins, testified that Hernandez was drunk that night, a statement backed up by a lengthy drink tab run up earlier at a Providence restaurant.

There has been no evidence, however, presented that either Wallace or Ortiz had been drinking.

That will almost assuredly be pointed out Tuesday during closing arguments. Garsh has granted each side 90 minutes to argue their case, up from the standard half hour in Massachusetts.

The prosecution will lean on mountains of evidence and testimony provided to make a clear argument that shows Hernandez's presence at the murder scene. It will show video of him carrying what an expert identified as a Glock semiautomatic pistol just after the murder and another video of Jenkins removing a large box the next day that she said she took to a mystery dumpster at the request of Hernandez despite not knowing the contents.

It will also highlight Hernandez's position as the ringleader of the group, including casually hanging around the next day at his pool with Wallace and Ortiz and later providing them a rental car to drive to Connecticut.

The following night, while safely inside a local police station where he was being questioned, Hernandez instructed his fiancée, with their eight-month-old daughter in tow, to meet Wallace and Ortiz in the middle of the night at a location off an interstate. There she was to provide them with money; she handed over $500.

That, once again, is a curious request to make if he feared one or both of the men were capable of a PCP-fueled murderous rage. Who sends his fiancée and child, flush with cash, to meet those kinds of people? The prosecution will no doubt use this to show Hernandez had complete comfort and trust in Wallace and Ortiz, aiding their fleeing from the region.

The defense will focus on lack of motive, arguing that it would make no sense for a man such as Hernandez, with growing fame, family and fortune, courtesy of a $40 million NFL contract, would just randomly kill his friend Lloyd. Hernandez and Lloyd shared an enthusiasm for smoking marijuana and hung out often since Lloyd began dating Shayanna Jenkins' younger sister.

The lack of motive, more than even the lack of a discovered murder weapon, is the biggest hole in the prosecution's case. Fee built his opening argument on that thought: "Why would Aaron kill his friend Odin?"

That's what everyone wonders when it comes to Hernandez. It is particularly challenging here because the Commonwealth couldn't admit evidence of Hernandez's alleged participation in other shootings and alleged murders. He faces charges for a 2012 double homicide in Boston, the trial of which should begin later this year.

The jury, however, heard nothing about that. They did hear plenty, though, over this lengthy trial that has stretched across 11 weeks, often delayed due to uncharacteristically heavy snow this winter.

"At this time you have heard and seen all the evidence you will see in this case," Garsh instructed the jury Monday afternoon, reminding them to not begin deliberating until after closing arguments and her instructions on the law that will come later Tuesday.

"Then the case will be yours," Garsh said.

As she said that, Aaron Hernandez, looking sharp and alert despite being a long way from the NFL, stood and peered at the jury.

None of them, at that moment, were looking back.

 

[RUSF18]

Interesting that part of the defense's closing argument was an admission that Hernandez was at the scene when Lloyd was killed.

 

[Warsteinner]

Threw his homies right under the bus.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

I have been listening to the defense argument. Its simple, but its reasonable. Casting doubt on the experts and the police department to throw a wrench in the circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has some work to do, and they better keep it very simple for the jury.

"Reasonable", as in, the other guys were on PCP which is why they murdered Lloyd and Hernandez didn't know about it (to get around joint venture) despite them both acting very calm on video right after the murder?

reasonable as in the prosecution hadnt provided a motive or murder weapon, police handling of the case as suspicious or information beyond a reasonable doubt that he should be found guilty.

I didn't get to watch the prosecutions closing arguments and missed part of the defenses. So i will have to watch those when i get the chance. But i guess what i was saying is that the defense is keeping things simple, which is good for the jury. It would not surprise me at all of they do not find him guilty of murder or manslaughter.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Is there a reasonable doubt that the mystery box contained anything but the murder weapon. Stale girl scout cookies? Old IEEE proceedings publications?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Is there a reasonable doubt that the mystery box contained anything but the murder weapon. Stale girl scout cookies? Old IEEE proceedings publications?

Maybe a couple leftover packages of Peeps from last Easter?

 

[PinkydaPimp]

Is there a reasonable doubt that the mystery box contained anything but the murder weapon. Stale girl scout cookies? Old IEEE proceedings publications?

The reality is, what we think and have seen is completely different to what they have seen. Their basis for whether he is guilty is different than ours. Im not going to sit here and say i think he is innocent. But i could very easily see a case where a juror finds reasonable doubt and is not willing to convict based on what has been presented.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Is there a reasonable doubt that the mystery box contained anything but the murder weapon. Stale girl scout cookies? Old IEEE proceedings publications?

Maybe a couple leftover packages of Peeps from last Easter?

Outgrown and no longer needed Johnny Serial Killer action figures and props.

 

[GregR]

Is there a reasonable doubt that the mystery box contained anything but the murder weapon. Stale girl scout cookies? Old IEEE proceedings publications?

The reality is, what we think and have seen is completely different to what they have seen. Their basis for whether he is guilty is different than ours. Im not going to sit here and say i think he is innocent. But i could very easily see a case where a juror finds reasonable doubt and is not willing to convict based on what has been presented.

Absolutely. They could be an illogical person incapable of inferring things reasonably from a set of facts. Or someone who is looking for any reason to acquit a player from their favorite team and will concoct one or seize on one no matter how unlikely.

Or maybe they just look into his big dreamy eyes and think, "He wouldn't hurt a puppy!"

 

[PinkydaPimp]

Is there a reasonable doubt that the mystery box contained anything but the murder weapon. Stale girl scout cookies? Old IEEE proceedings publications?

The reality is, what we think and have seen is completely different to what they have seen. Their basis for whether he is guilty is different than ours. Im not going to sit here and say i think he is innocent. But i could very easily see a case where a juror finds reasonable doubt and is not willing to convict based on what has been presented.

Absolutely. They could be an illogical person incapable of inferring things reasonably from a set of facts. Or someone who is looking for any reason to acquit a player from their favorite team and will concoct one or seize on one no matter how unlikely.

Or maybe they just look into his big dreamy eyes and think, "He wouldn't hurt a puppy!"

Hey, it happens all the time.

 

[GregR]

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. The opposite, I was serious about the "absolutely" part. I'm just also commenting on the kind of people that do it.

 

[Faust]

Aaron Hernandez lawyer: Not guilty is only possible verdict

 

[Anarchy99]

I have been listening to the defense argument. Its simple, but its reasonable. Casting doubt on the experts and the police department to throw a wrench in the circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has some work to do, and they better keep it very simple for the jury.

"Reasonable", as in, the other guys were on PCP which is why they murdered Lloyd and Hernandez didn't know about it (to get around joint venture) despite them both acting very calm on video right after the murder?

reasonable as in the prosecution hadnt provided a motive or murder weapon, police handling of the case as suspicious or information beyond a reasonable doubt that he should be found guilty.

I didn't get to watch the prosecutions closing arguments and missed part of the defenses. So i will have to watch those when i get the chance. But i guess what i was saying is that the defense is keeping things simple, which is good for the jury. It would not surprise me at all of they do not find him guilty of murder or manslaughter.

This gets me back to the instruction of the jurors. If we are to believe the legal talking heads, "motive" is not required to be shown or addressed in Mass joint venture cases. The things needed for a joint venture conviction are outlined a little earlier in the thread.

It seems pretty clear to most people that 4 guys were in a car and drove done a street with an industrial complex on it. Only 3 of them got back in the car and drove away. If the state did a good enough job showing that AH conspired to commit a crime, then he should be found guilty. Given that he called his goons to come to MA and then had his woman drive to RI to give them some cash, it certainly looks suspicious (but who knows how the jury will see things).

Why AH would want Lloyd dead doesn't change the circumstances of the case. Lloyd is dead for whatever reason someone wanted him dead. Doesn't change the fact that he is dead. Similarly, not having a murder weapon does not change the fact that there is a body and he was shot dead.

 

[Faust]

Hernandez lawyer: Aaron Hernandez witnessed the murder

 

[RUSF18]

I have been listening to the defense argument. Its simple, but its reasonable. Casting doubt on the experts and the police department to throw a wrench in the circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has some work to do, and they better keep it very simple for the jury.

"Reasonable", as in, the other guys were on PCP which is why they murdered Lloyd and Hernandez didn't know about it (to get around joint venture) despite them both acting very calm on video right after the murder?

reasonable as in the prosecution hadnt provided a motive or murder weapon, police handling of the case as suspicious or information beyond a reasonable doubt that he should be found guilty.

I didn't get to watch the prosecutions closing arguments and missed part of the defenses. So i will have to watch those when i get the chance. But i guess what i was saying is that the defense is keeping things simple, which is good for the jury. It would not surprise me at all of they do not find him guilty of murder or manslaughter.

This gets me back to the instruction of the jurors. If we are to believe the legal talking heads, "motive" is not required to be shown or addressed in Mass joint venture cases. The things needed for a joint venture conviction are outlined a little earlier in the thread.

It seems pretty clear to most people that 4 guys were in a car and drove done a street with an industrial complex on it. Only 3 of them got back in the car and drove away. If the state did a good enough job showing that AH conspired to commit a crime, then he should be found guilty. Given that he called his goons to come to MA and then had his woman drive to RI to give them some cash, it certainly looks suspicious (but who knows how the jury will see things).

Why AH would want Lloyd dead doesn't change the circumstances of the case. Lloyd is dead for whatever reason someone wanted him dead. Doesn't change the fact that he is dead. Similarly, not having a murder weapon does not change the fact that there is a body and he was shot dead.

Literally just heard the judge say this to the jury.

 

[Anarchy99]

Not sure telling the jury that AH was there and witnessed the shooting is the best strategy, given the joint venture element of the case.

 

[Warsteinner]

Think the verdict will come today?

 

[Vector]

Hernandez just lost all his gang cred by rolling on his 2 friends.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Not sure telling the jury that AH was there and witnessed the shooting is the best strategy, given the joint venture element of the case.

They already had placed him at the scene, it was basically already factual.

I think it kinda had to be addressed.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Hernandez lawyer: Aaron Hernandez witnessed the murder

"The investigation done in this case was incomplete, biased and inept," Sultan said. "That was not fair to Odin Lloyd, that was not fair to Aaron Hernandez, and it was not fair to you. All that effort and this is all they could come up with. What does that tell you?"

that somebody's trying to get away with a murder?

 

[QuizGuy66]

So what do you guys think? I bet her only gets found guilty on the weapons charges. (and yeah I think he did it)

-QG

 

[Anarchy99]

So what do you guys think? I bet her only gets found guilty on the weapons charges. (and yeah I think he did it)

-QG

I vote for found guilty on first or second degree manslaughter and the weapons charges.

 

[QuizGuy66]

So what do you guys think? I bet her only gets found guilty on the weapons charges. (and yeah I think he did it)

-QG

I vote for found guilty on first or second degree manslaughter and the weapons charges.

Manslaughter is not a choice.

1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, or not gulity.

The rest is weapons charges.

-QG

 

[RUSF18]

First degree murder.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I'm betting numbers 6, 9, and 13 are excused.

-QG

 

[RUSF18]

I'm betting numbers 6, 9, and 13 are excused.

-QG

In honor of "Home Alone", I'll say...1, 2...10.

 

[QuizGuy66]

whoever had 2, 4, and 12 congratulations on winning the pool.

-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

Tsarnaev on the other hand is gonna go 30 out of 30 guilty.

-QG

 

[PinkydaPimp]

so if one person votes not guilty, and the rest guilty, it will be called a mistrial correct?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

don't they sit around in the jury lounge and hash it out in dramatic fashion until everybody agrees?

 

[Bob Magaw]

I have been listening to the defense argument. Its simple, but its reasonable. Casting doubt on the experts and the police department to throw a wrench in the circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has some work to do, and they better keep it very simple for the jury.

"Reasonable", as in, the other guys were on PCP which is why they murdered Lloyd and Hernandez didn't know about it (to get around joint venture) despite them both acting very calm on video right after the murder?

reasonable as in the prosecution hadnt provided a motive or murder weapon, police handling of the case as suspicious or information beyond a reasonable doubt that he should be found guilty.

I didn't get to watch the prosecutions closing arguments and missed part of the defenses. So i will have to watch those when i get the chance. But i guess what i was saying is that the defense is keeping things simple, which is good for the jury. It would not surprise me at all of they do not find him guilty of murder or manslaughter.

This gets me back to the instruction of the jurors. If we are to believe the legal talking heads, "motive" is not required to be shown or addressed in Mass joint venture cases. The things needed for a joint venture conviction are outlined a little earlier in the thread.

It seems pretty clear to most people that 4 guys were in a car and drove done a street with an industrial complex on it. Only 3 of them got back in the car and drove away. If the state did a good enough job showing that AH conspired to commit a crime, then he should be found guilty. Given that he called his goons to come to MA and then had his woman drive to RI to give them some cash, it certainly looks suspicious (but who knows how the jury will see things).

Why AH would want Lloyd dead doesn't change the circumstances of the case. Lloyd is dead for whatever reason someone wanted him dead. Doesn't change the fact that he is dead. Similarly, not having a murder weapon does not change the fact that there is a body and he was shot dead.

"Lloyd is dead for whatever reason someone wanted him dead."

The defense strategy to throw sand in the eyes of logic and gum up the works of the juries critical faculties, is to say there was no reason, it was a random act of crazed, maniacal, frenzied PCP users.

Which still begs the question, why did Hernandez go with them to an abandoned field, exit the car and accompany the group to the killing ground. Did he think they were going to break into discussion groups about a semiotics text they had all been reading?

And what has the defense proferred to make the jury think AH WOULDN'T have pulled the trigger? The not exactly F. Lee Bailey material, "Cheech and Chong" theory, Lloyd was his budmaster and rolled Holy Grail blunts, as if he was the only person on the Eastern seaboard capable of procuring weed and rolling it into a roughly cylindrical shape. I guess those are rare attributes in combination, shared by only maybe tens of millions of other people? The defense seems more obssessed by drugs than than the Stoner Rock genre.

 

[Anarchy99]

Can anyone else remember two huge trials happening at the same time in the same city?

 

[davearm]

Is there a reasonable doubt that the mystery box contained anything but the murder weapon. Stale girl scout cookies? Old IEEE proceedings publications?

How about marijuana.

If I had a box full of weed and I knew the cops would be executing a search warrant, then I think I'd try to get rid of that box before they got there.

 

[DaveL]

Can anyone else remember two huge trials happening at the same time in the same city?

well, state (50 miles away). But...no. Would be crazy if it were in the same courthouse

 

[PinkydaPimp]

I have been listening to the defense argument. Its simple, but its reasonable. Casting doubt on the experts and the police department to throw a wrench in the circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has some work to do, and they better keep it very simple for the jury.

"Reasonable", as in, the other guys were on PCP which is why they murdered Lloyd and Hernandez didn't know about it (to get around joint venture) despite them both acting very calm on video right after the murder?

reasonable as in the prosecution hadnt provided a motive or murder weapon, police handling of the case as suspicious or information beyond a reasonable doubt that he should be found guilty. I didn't get to watch the prosecutions closing arguments and missed part of the defenses. So i will have to watch those when i get the chance. But i guess what i was saying is that the defense is keeping things simple, which is good for the jury. It would not surprise me at all of they do not find him guilty of murder or manslaughter.

This gets me back to the instruction of the jurors. If we are to believe the legal talking heads, "motive" is not required to be shown or addressed in Mass joint venture cases. The things needed for a joint venture conviction are outlined a little earlier in the thread.It seems pretty clear to most people that 4 guys were in a car and drove done a street with an industrial complex on it. Only 3 of them got back in the car and drove away. If the state did a good enough job showing that AH conspired to commit a crime, then he should be found guilty. Given that he called his goons to come to MA and then had his woman drive to RI to give them some cash, it certainly looks suspicious (but who knows how the jury will see things).

Why AH would want Lloyd dead doesn't change the circumstances of the case. Lloyd is dead for whatever reason someone wanted him dead. Doesn't change the fact that he is dead. Similarly, not having a murder weapon does not change the fact that there is a body and he was shot dead.

"Lloyd is dead for whatever reason someone wanted him dead."

The defense strategy to throw sand in the eyes of logic and gum up the works of the juries critical faculties, is to say there was no reason, it was a random act of crazed, maniacal, frenzied PCP users.

Which still begs the question, why did Hernandez go with them to an abandoned field, exit the car and accompany the group to the killing ground. Did he think they were going to break into discussion groups about a semiotics text they had all been reading?

And what has the defense proferred to make the jury think AH WOULDN'T have pulled the trigger? The not exactly F. Lee Bailey material, "Cheech and Chong" theory, Lloyd was his budmaster and rolled Holy Grail blunts, as if he was the only person on the Eastern seaboard capable of procuring weed and rolling it into a roughly cylindrical shape. I guess those are rare attributes in combination, shared by only maybe tens of millions of people? The defense seems obssessed by drugs than than the Stoner Rock genre.

I don't think its out of the realm of possibility that they went to discuss something, maybe a drug deal, maybe to tell him to stop running his mouth and ah's buddy on Pcp just killed him. At that point you he just tried to cover it up. what did the prosecution do to prove he knew they were going to kill him?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

do they really have to drive out to the middle of nowhere to discuss a drug deal?

couldn't they just get some sundaes and sit in the friendly's parking lot?

 

[Bob Magaw]

What did the prosecution do to prove his buddies were on PCP. Nothing. No toxicology tests.

Anything could have happened. Maybe when he was waving around a gun shaped object like Scarface minutes after the murder, it was actually a TV remote, they had picked up Lloyd in the middle of the night because he was an ace electronics repairman, went to the abandoned field because the light was better there, and he was irate that they murdered the person that could have fixed his remote. That COULD have happened, so they have to let him go.

 

[davearm]

What did the prosecution do to prove his buddies were on PCP. Nothing. No toxicology tests.

Anything could have happened. Maybe when he was waving around a gun shaped object like Scarface minutes after the murder, it was actually a TV remote, they had picked up Lloyd in the middle of the night because he was an ace electronics repairman, went to the abandoned field because the light was better there, and he was irate that they murdered the person that could have fixed his remote. That COULD have happened, so they have to let him go.

The prosecution wasn't attempting to prove his buddies were on PCP.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

What did the prosecution do to prove his buddies were on PCP. Nothing. No toxicology tests.

Anything could have happened. Maybe when he was waving around a gun shaped object like Scarface minutes after the murder, it was actually a TV remote, they had picked up Lloyd in the middle of the night because he was an ace electronics repairman, went to the abandoned field because the light was better there, and he was irate that they murdered the person that could have fixed his remote. That COULD have happened, so they have to let him go.

forget the PCP. Im asking a serious question. What did they prove that shows AH had the intent to kill him?

 

[Bob Magaw]

Is there a reasonable doubt that the mystery box contained anything but the murder weapon. Stale girl scout cookies? Old IEEE proceedings publications?

How about marijuana.

If I had a box full of weed and I knew the cops would be executing a search warrant, then I think I'd try to get rid of that box before they got there.

And they don't have to be mutually exclusive. The jury could consider the possibility that a box could hold both.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

Also, anyone know where i can find the full closing statements?

 

[Bob Magaw]

What did the prosecution do to prove his buddies were on PCP. Nothing. No toxicology tests.

Anything could have happened. Maybe when he was waving around a gun shaped object like Scarface minutes after the murder, it was actually a TV remote, they had picked up Lloyd in the middle of the night because he was an ace electronics repairman, went to the abandoned field because the light was better there, and he was irate that they murdered the person that could have fixed his remote. That COULD have happened, so they have to let him go.

The prosecution wasn't attempting to prove his buddies were on PCP.

Meant the defense, they floated the theory. But no tox reports (my understanding), so unsubstantiated. They could float an unsubstantiated theory that one of his buddies has a rare seizure disorder (only one on the planet) that makes you pull a gun out and shoot somebody five times.