<p>Events such as the public intoxication charge in Lexington in 2008 when he was tasered by a female police officer because he was belligerent and out of control.</p>
<p>
His defense team knew Huguely could not maintain a fa</p>
<p>It also appears that the prosecution is looking for a lesser charge than the first-degree murder. Today’s Baltimore Sun had coverage from closing arguments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I assume he said it because she sent the emails at all. Apparently she sent the email to 3 expert witnesses. It is a blatant disregard of evidentiary rules. </p>
<p>There is nothing to stop attorneys from briefing their experts on others’ testimony except ethics. They will also be putting their experts in a bad situation because they are questioned about how they were prepared. There are certainly experts who will not perjure themselves. If caught, the judge could disallow the experts’ testimony, severely compromising the clients’ cases. </p>
<p>I don’t believe this is the first time this attorney did this. Perhaps it is the first time she did by email and that may have been because she was sick. </p>
<p>I think it would have been madness for Huguely to testify. I can’t imagine it would have been considered for a minute. The prosecution would love to get him on the stand.</p>
<p>I’m curious to see how long the jury deliberates.</p>
<p>MD Mom, can you attach the link for the closing arguments? Thanks!</p>
<p>If I were on the jury, I would convict for murder 2. I wouldn’t let him off with involuntary manslaughter because he didn’t call 911 and he took the computer and lied to his roommate about where he’d been. But, I don’t believe the prosecution proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he intended to kill her. JMO</p>
<p>I would have agreed with you if it wasn’t for that threatening email. Shouting at someone “I could kill you or I should have killed you” is one thing but typing it and hitting the send button is something else. I also think that the sentiment expressed in I SHOULD have killed you is very different and more sinister than I COULD kill you.</p>
<p>that’s a good point, EPTR, and the jury may weigh that stronger than I did because they will have it right in front of them and I’d forgotten about it.</p>
<p>Here is the link. The paper also had a great accompanying article about alcohol abuse on college campuses. I may start another thread.</p>
<p>[George</a> Huguely V trial: Deliberation to begin Wednesday - Baltimore Sun](<a href=“Huguely jury to begin deliberation Wednesday”>Huguely jury to begin deliberation Wednesday)</p>
<p>One thing that I have learned from following some of these high profile cases is that we can never really know what is going on in the juror’s heads during testimony. We are getting so much more nuanced information from the press (true or not) that we form strong opinions from the get go. The jurors are getting everything through a filter.
I also wonder if the publicity and public outcry over the Casey Anthony case will have any bearing on other cases like this one. People were and are so angry at the outcome of the Anthony trial that I wonder if jurors on other trials will tend toward more punitive findings as a result.</p>
<p>Poet, they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, not shadow of doubt. </p>
<p>They can also convict for murder 2, which is for victim killed in connection with another crime (theft of the laptop). Defense said Huguely claimed to take laptop as “ransom” to get her to call him. Prosecution – laptop found in trash bin. Second degree murder also does not require pre-meditation.</p>
<p>yes, reasonable doubt. I tend to err on lesser charges.</p>
<p>As I said, I would convict for murder 2.</p>
<p>EPTR, the anthony case, since it had capital punishment attached, was a tough one. I would have had a tough time convicting for the death penalty in that case, or any case, actually, and I think it was the fact that they had to weigh THAT charge which led to the entire outcome. JMO. I understood why they came in with the verdict they came in with, though I also understand the outrage of those who heard evidence which actually wasn’t presented in court.</p>
<p>if anything, watching these cases, I’m more and more convinced the process is too flawed to ever have a capital punishment in this country. Also, JMO</p>
<p>To me (not a lawyer), the closing arguments sounded as though they wanted murder 2. They emphasized that he took the computer. Although experts valued the computer at less than $200, which must be Virginia’s number to qualify as a great enough theft . I hope this makes sense.</p>
<p>Here’s the quote out of the Sun article.</p>
<p>“Chapman backed away from earlier assertions that Huguely had intended to murder Love, however. He urged the jury to convict the defendant of felony murder, for allegedly committing the crime while in the process of a robbery, or of second-degree murder, which involves malice without premeditation. The former carries a maximum sentence of life in prison, and the latter a maximum of 40 years.”</p>
<p>“If caught, the judge could disallow the experts’ testimony, severely compromising the clients’ cases.” cartera, didn’t the judge do that and disallow some of the testimony by the defense expert? That is what I thought I read on one online account.</p>
<p>For all of you with legal backgrounds, is there any chance GH could appeal the sentence? If the email one of his defense counsels made to their expert witness caused the judge to ban any questions dealing with pertinent medical expert testimony, could he (GH) use that as a tactic to say he did not receive a fair trial? Even with one of his attnys getting ill has caused a delay in jury deliberation due to the holiday…is that problematic?</p>
<p>I worry that with his family’s wealth, they are going to go to the ends of the earth to drag this out and find any way loophole they can to reduce his sentence.</p>
<p>Of course daddy huguely will appeal. That goes without saying. But georgie would sit in jail, where he has been, since his arrest.</p>
<p>Daddy Huguely has his own problems. I don’t know about the rest of the family.</p>
<p>^^^^Yes, both financial and legal problems.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Anthony jury had a long list of choices upon which they could have convicted that did not involve the death penalty. </p>
<p>The delay in the trial will not be grounds for appeal. I doubt the limiting of the questions will be a big issue. The defense said he was not intending to testify on the areas that were excluded anyway. The judge no doubt kept in mind that he didn’t want to punish Huguely for the stupid actions of his counsel. The defense preserved the record but really didn’t want the expert testimony completely thrown out. The defense backing off 1st degree is not that surprising. They know the evidence is tough on that count. They may be getting some input from the Love family too.</p>
<p>I don’t want to rehash the anthony case, except to say that I really believe the prosecution bungled the case by going sooo hard for capital murder. JMO A prosecutor going for manslaughter would have tried a different case.</p>
<p>It should be interesting to see the outcome of this case, but it is still a very sad tale all around. Many lives destroyed.</p>