I too have noticed that he is always wearing glasses …and yet no other pictures of him on the internet have him sporting glasses. This seems like an obvious ploy to me. If I were a juror and saw prior picture evidence of him NOT wearing glasses (and yet wearing them now), I would think the defendant is not being genuine. However, maybe there is no “prior picture” evidence in this case for the jury to see.
I think there is virtually no chance that this defendant will testify. The down side of him testifying is this:
- He is arrogant. The case is his to lose. One smirk on cross-examination could do it.
- His testifying would mean that the prosecution could bring back the accuser to testify on rebuttal. The defense does not want the victim to be the last witness that the jury hears from. As it is now, the jury last heard her 15 witnesses and almost one week ago.
- The defense attorney can be much more aggressive on cross-examination than he can be on direct examination. Conversely, the defense would be wary of giving the prosecutor the opportunity to aggressively cross-examine any witnesses that it might call tomorrow.
- The last testimony the jury heard today (if the tweets are accurate) is that no sperm was found on one part of the underwear, and the sperm found on the other part of the underwear cannot conclusively be identified as his. This is the kind of evidence a defense wants the jury to hang on to.
- The jurors are probably exhausted at this point.
The up side to him testifying: There is no up side.
I would expect that the trial goes straight to closing arguments tomorrow morning, perhaps after a motion for a directed verdict by the defense counsel on some counts (which wouldn’t be granted, but would preserve the issue for appeal).
Also, as I read today’s reporting of the evidence, it seems to me that traces of Labrie’s sperm has been found in the girl’s underwear. Can there be any explanation for this (other than intercourse???) How in the world does he overcome that evidence?
And, I’m with midwestdad3 on this…it is certainly possibly he will not testify. If he’s one of these kids who thinks he’s smarter than everyone else in the room, he would be a very difficult-to-control witness.
That said, if he doesn’t testify and give his side of the story in a compelling way, I PERSONALLY would find him guilty. Of what, I’m not sure yet, but of the misdemeanor assault at a minimum.
I agree with MidwestDad on this - the defendant has more to lose than gain. My question is how the jury will feel about not hearing from the defendant when his lawyer promised he’d testify in his opening statement? Do you think juries hold that (unfulfilled promises) against defendants? I know the prosecutor can’t mention it in closing, but I didn’t know if they still might be wondering why he didn’t get on the stand if he had nothing to hide.
Noticed that too and it bothers me, along with the tweed jacket and crewneck sweater (in August). Please.
@doschicos LOL!! re wearing his glasses: It’s called “you don’t want to look like a jock; you want to look like a nerd.”
As I see it…
I think the odds are at least 50/50 there will be a plea bargain announced tomorrow morning.
Why do I say that? IMO, if Labrie doesn’t take the stand, he gets convicted of AT LEAST misdemeanor sexual assault. The prosecution has made out a good case that Labrie and the accuser had sex.
If he’d had “divine intervention” and never had sex…why did he ask her–via email, no less–if she were on the pill? Idle curiousity? (Personally, though it’s purely circumstantial evidence, I can’t imagine a guy like Labrie having consensual sex with a young woman without asking her BEFORE sex.) Why did he say in reply to her “No” “Good thing I put a condom on part way through then.” Why did he run around telling a bunch of people they had sex–then write HER an angry email when she apparently told other people the same thing?
Why did a smart, educated young woman ASK him if he’d used a condom if they hadn’t? Why did she ask the school nurse for emergency contraception if they hadn’t? Why did she undergo a rape kit if they hadn’t?
And, SHE NEVER DENIED THEY HAD SEX. Nope, the only thing she said was Yes, it was consensual. Even if you think she consented, it’s a misdemeanor. She was 15. Moreover, Labrie knew it.
They had sex, folks. If he doesn’t get on the stand, I think the jury will find that.
The ONLY way he can try to raise a reasonable doubt about that is to testify. But that is an absolutely HUGE risk. He can throw the dice and gamble…but if he loses…he’s going to prison…not jail. He’s going to be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life.
That’s a mighty big gamble. And I think “Mr. I’m the Smartest Person in the Room Labrie” has a much better understanding now of what a risk it is. It’s pure speculation on my part but…he KNEW this girl. I’d bet quite a bit he underestimated her, her sister, and her parents. He NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS dreamed she’d get up there on the witness stand in a packed court room and tell people her story. He never dreamed that her parents wouldn’t talk her out of it. He may well have thought that the four young men who testified he told them he had sex with her would lie for him.
Then there’s the using the computer to solicit sex with a minor count. That’s a felony too. The planning…the emails…I think there’s , if anything, less reason for the jury to find a reasonable doubt on that one.
So, tonight his attorney will explain that he has to testify or he has to cop a plea–if the prosecution will let him. If the trial doesn’t start on time tomorrow, they’re negotiating.
Unlike MidwestDad3, I think this is an EASIER less complicated case than the usual he said/she said. She’s 15. There’s no suggestion that either was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. He used the computer to get her to meet him. He told other people.
Isn’t this why he has changed attorneys several times? His reluctance to take a plea deal?
Even if he pleads guilty to only the child endangerment, he could still go on the sex offender registry:
Edit: I was curious about what convictions require registration with the state sex offender list and noticed that the child endangerment charge (RSA 639:3) is included in Tier II of the NH regulations, if the trial judge so orders. Link -
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxii/651-b/651-b-mrg.htm
Breaking news: Reporters are tweeting the judge threw out the child endangerment charge.
Ok, now I need you legal eagles to tell me what this means. Why would the judge through it out? What implications does it have, if any, for the rest of the charges?
@rockvillemom - I think the arrogance that we are all picking up on also led him to change attorneys. His first attorney, someone well respected in his field, seemed to think a plea was a good course to follow.
I think @jonri’s analysis is accurate at this point. And I think rejecting the pleas that were previously offered to him was based on his confidence and bravado - he’s lived his life pretty well liked, and he probably thought a jury would love him too.
He also may have calculated that the girl would cave in the end…and she didn’t. He lost that game of chicken. Now he’s seen how he is perceived in the real world (I’m sure his attorneys read these types of board and comments on articles) and he realizes that he’s been backed into a corner. Reality is knocking on his door now.
I don’t practice criminal law. I don’t practice in New Hampshire. I am engaging in complete and utter speculation. No idea , just guessing.
Why child endangerment was tossed out…Prosecution’s theory was that he’s a —what’s the term, precept?–means he owed a special duty to the younger students. Judge found insufficient evidence of that to make out a case. Frankly, I think that’s the right decision if that’s the prosecution’s theory.
I agree with much of what @jonri said and I am not in NH either. However, I think it is highly unlikely that the prosecutor would offer a plea bargain, having put on her entire case at this point. That would be admitting defeat. The police, her colleagues, future complainants, and even judges would lose confidence in her. Trials are expensive and emotional. I don’t think she would take the case away from the jury at this juncture in order to secure a misdemeanor conviction. And if she does, she really shouldn’t be in the position of prosecutor.
There is little question that sexual activity took place, but did penetration occur? That is going to be the jury’s focus, obviously. Without going into detail, uh, there could be an obvious reason that will occur to members of the jury, particularly the male members, for how semen ended up on the underwear without penetration having occurred.
As to timing, it is really hard for the prosecutor to control the clock at the end of testimony, but she would have been in a much stronger position if she could have kept testimony going until about an hour into tomorrow morning before resting her case. Then, the defense would have had a much bigger challenge in simply resting without looking like they had something to hide. I think the defense got two huge breaks in this trial as to timing, and it is unfortunate for the prosecution. The way things stand now, jurors may just think that there was some good reason in all the conversations that were had at the end of the day today, as to why defendant didn’t testify. In other words, the defense resting in the morning won’t seem so abrupt to them.
I am personally disappointed that more administrators weren’t called. In no way should they be off the hook here. Who was responsible for not watching the set of keys that enabled this whole thing to happen? And who decided to keep painting over the wall instead of dealing effectively with a situation that put SPS students at risk. One hopes there will be a civil cause of action against the school.
In any event, all should be decided by the weekend.
LOL, There’s another reason. The prosecution didn’t oppose the motion to dismiss that count. http://www.wmur.com/news/concord-police-detectives-testify-at-owen-labrie-trial/34907938
According to what I read, his DNA was found on her underwear but the sperm traces could not be shown to be his. His DNA could have gotten on her underwear in numerous ways.
As for how does sperm get on her underpants w/o actual intercourse…come on people. Exercise a little imagination. 
Regarding his describing his accomplishments to the police indicating cockiness, an equally reasonable explanation would be that he was desperately trying to convince them that a stellar citizen like him could never have done such a thing.
I don’t know what this kid is actually like. I don’t think any of us really do. I do know that he did a bad thing when he pursued and hooked up with this young girl, whether penetration occurred or not.
I absolutely do not trust any characterization of his demeanor, actions, or speech by the police detective. They can and will say anything to try to convict their target. Sometimes they are genuinely trying to aid justice. Sometimes they are not. Like some others in this case, prosecutors and police want to score.
JonRI, DOSCHICOs, and others,
Thanks so much for your valuable comments and opinions.
^DNA from a different guy, or am I misreading it? Is it possible that some guy folded her laundry for her in the laundry room?
So, basically, does the defense typically make a motion to dismiss charges as a matter of course?
@consolation, of course you are right. None of us can judge what happened, other than he did a bad thing by getting that too-young girl there in the first place, with undisputed bad intentions.
And yes - duh- I get it, there are other explanations for the dna in the underwear. I wasn’t thinking. 
My understanding of what I read was Labrie’s DNA, plus traces of sperm that cannot be shown to be his.
@doschicos. I would say generally, yes, good defense attorneys make those motions. You need to protect your record for an appeal. If you don’t make a motion during trial, and try to argue later that a count should have been dismissed, you will be deemed to have waived it.
My read is that they dismissed the lower charges because they believe they will get a conviction on a higher charge.
Really any rape trial is a crap shoot. The Vanderbilt trial had people calling into the TV station saying they would acquit despite the video evidence that there was definitely some level of guilt.
I don’t think Labrie should testify. He only needs one person to believe him, Even if he is found guilty, his appeal for having poor counsel that advised him not to testify would prevail and again he would only need one juror to hang the jury.
I have watched several of these high profile cases over the years. I found the level of reporting to be remarkably highly consistent in this trial. In good conscience, I think I would convict in two of the three felony charges.
…and he could walk out the door a free man and be your daughter’s classmate very soon. Who knows?