<p>Prior threats are certainly put forth as evidence of premeditation. However, the time between the threat and the death is relevant too and whether there was planning going on. That doesn’t seem to be the case. The jury could also believe, that even though he ended up killing her, he didn’t really mean what he said in the threat. “I’m gonna kill you” is uttered much too often by people who never have any intention of doing it. Although I think Yeardley was afraid of him, I don’t think either she or her friends thought he meant he planned to kill her. </p>
<p>We just don’t know how any of this is playing out for the jury. I have to admit that, when I see Huguely as he is today, I don’t have a visceral reaction that he is a murderer. He looks too much like a scared kid. Even though I have a daughter who is about to graduate, just as Yeardley was, the parent strings in me are tugged by him too. Are they for the jury?</p>
<p>I think this is why orders of protection are so important. They protect the victim AND the perpetrator.</p>
<p>I don’t think he “meant” to kill her, but he was so angry and out of control, he could have killed her any time he was around her. He had no business being around her and he needed a LOT of court ordered counseling, which he would have gotten, if he had been arrested and charged. Strong anti-harrassment and anti-domestic violence laws protect all parties, in my opinion.</p>
<p>I don’t think a jury will convict of first degree murder. I think they “should” give him second degree murder and they “will” give him voluntary manslaughter. That’s my guess. I don’t think his drunkenness is a viable excuse. 89% of all people in prison for violent crimes, right now, committed the act while under the influence of something, alcohol being the most common drug.</p>
<p>I can’t prove this, but I believe that whatever the sentence it is will contain an extra five to ten years because he killed a pretty girl. Unfortunately, looks matter to most juries.</p>
<p>You are right, Razorsharp, Juries do judge based on looks, which is really the reason I believe he will get manslaughter instead of murder 2, personally.</p>
<p>Too be charged or convicted of first degree murder, the prosecution has to prove that there was a plan to kill her? How long would that plan have to be in place before the actual crime for it to be considered premeditated?
In other words, if someone starts planning a murder on Sat. morning and carries it out on Sat. night, is that premeditated? Or is it second degree murder?</p>
<p>You never know how juries will decide these things. Think about OJ. Think about Casey Anthony. </p>
<p>Thank you cartera for explaining the difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, in your post 1096. Now I need to go find what murder 2 is.</p>
<p>I guess in terms of “wrongness” and time to serve, my guess is they’re ranked as so … … (all are felonies):
first degree murder
second degree (murder 2)
voluntary manslaughter
involuntary manslaughter
third degree murder
abuse</p>
<p>I’m one of those who thinks the fact he took her computer and put it in a dumpster means he KNEW that she was in bad shape when he left. I can’t think of any other reason he would take her computer and throw it away than trying to get rid of the messages on it. </p>
<p>I can understand and believe that he might not have intended to kill her when he went there that night and simply lost it. I cannot believe that he didn’t know that he had hurt her by the time he left. What makes me angriest is that he didn’t “man up” and call 911 to get her help. The testimony, as I understand it, is that it took 2 hours for her to die. If at any point during the first half hour or so he had called for help, she probably would have lived.</p>
<p>Premeditation doesn’t have to be a long time. Sometimes it can be as little as going back into the house, grabbing a gun, and returning to kill. Sometimes it can even be a shorter time.</p>
<p>Premeditated does not mean that the person has to have some well-thought-out plan with strategies, escapes, and cover-ups.</p>
<p>My understanding is that in VA, premeditation can be a very short period. So kicking in the door is damning. My understanding is also that yesterday the judge told the lawyers, outside of the hearing of the jury, that the state had already presented sufficient evidence for a charge of first degree murder to go to the jury.</p>
From the prosecutors position, this definitely shows his guilt. But, from his defense, couldn’t they paint this piece as a kid who “didn’t know” what he did? They may even show her death was involuntary. Maybe he was so focused on her computer, which he took, and not on what he left, a dying girlfriend.</p>
<p>Now, I think he is totally guilty and should get the max, but the defense may just manage to raise enough doubt that he could get off much easier than you’d think.</p>
<p>The defense makes a motion to dismiss after the prosecution rests, even if there is no chance of it being granted, because they have to create a record for appeals. The threshold for the judge to find enough evidence for the charges to go to the jury is not high. Any factual disputes go to the jury.</p>
<p>Carter, yes, but after the defense made the motion, the judge denied, there was an outburst, and the defense lawyer “claimed” to be ill, so delay in trial.</p>
<p>Didn’t know any of that. Why would it be a surprise that he denied the motion? A judge isn’t going to take a charge like that with this evidence out of the hands of the jury. He could take the felony murder charge away if the laptop is not worth a certain amount of money. That might be a question of fact too though since I’m assuming they have opposing experts.</p>