Today’s testimony in the George Huguely trial was in three parts. First, Dr. Renu Virmani, a cardiovascular pathologist, testified about the microscopic studies that she had done of Yeardley Love’s heart. She testified that there was no evidence of a pre-existing heart condition, continuing in the effort to establish from the beginning of the trial that there was nothing that could have killed Yeardley Love other than what George Huguely did. She testified that there was evidence of microscopic injury to the heart, but that the injury showed only red blood cells, and no white blood cells. To Dr. Virmani, this means that she was likely already dead when the injury was inflicted. This, she said, means that the injury was likely inflicted during the efforts to resuscitate her, after she was already dead. (Earlier this week there was testimony that CPR went on for 30 minutes after she was already dead, in an effort to revive her.)
This testimony had two effects — to close off in advance a possible defense argument about the cause of death, and to show how thorough and careful the prosecution is being. Studies have shown that the single most important deciding factor for a jury in deciding whether to convict is whether the jurors believe that the prosecution has been fair and thorough and competent. If jurors trust the prosecutor and police and believe that the prosecutor and police are being fair and honest, they will give the prosecution the benefit of the doubt. If the jurors believe that the prosecutor and police are being unfair or dishonest, or if they believe that the prosecution was hasty in its work and didn’t consider all of the possibilities, the jurors will look askance at anything the prosecution says. Calling Dr. Virmani at this point allowed the prosecution to show themselves to be competent, careful, and leaving no stone unturned.
The second witness was Detective Lisa Reeves, who conducted the interrogation of George Huguely. This was the most dramatic, and perhaps the most important, piece of the case so far. The video lasted an hour and a half. The important points:
- He went to her room to talk to her about their relationship. He had been drinking heavily all day. There had been a father-son golf tournament, and he had been drinking from the morning on. He estimated that he had had as many as 20 drinks during the day and evening.
- When he got there and wanted to come in, she totally freaked out, telling him that he couldn’t come in. He eventually admitted to having kicked the door in, but he said, “I’m not here to fight with you; I’m here to talk.” She was “on edge” because she knew how mad he was over things that had happened the week before (their fights and arguments over infidelity).
- He admitted grabbing her by the shoulders and shaking her, and “she kept hitting her head against the wall.” Then they fought, wrestling on the floor. He finally put –one time he used the verb “throw”– her back on the bed and left.
- He took her computer with him so that she would have to come talk to him.
It was apparent that up to this point in the interview, George Huguely did not know that Yeardley Love was dead. He seemed to think that he was being questioned about an assault. Then Detective Reeves told him, “She is dead. You killed her.” Huguely responded, “She is dead? No, I didn’t…. She is dead?… I don’t believe that. I didn’t hurt her.” He started to cry on the tape, asking police to tell him that she wasn’t really dead. “I would never to that to her, I swear to God.” he repeated over and over, “There is no way she is dead.” He was crying loudly, saying, “I didn’t hurt her. I know she’s not dead. There is no way. I did not kill her. There is no way. No. No. No.” As the tape was playing, Huguely put his hands to his face. He, his family, Love’s family and friends, and even two of the jurors were noticeably crying as the videotape was played.
The last witness of the day was Forensic Evidence Detective Michael Flaherty. He catalogued the items of evidence seized from Love’s room — the clothes, the bedding, the blood stains, the pictures of the scene, the door that had been broken when Huguely kicked it in. Flaherty presents as competent and thorough, fitting the theme that the Commonwealth is worthy of the trust of the jurors.
But by far the most important part of the day was the showing of the videotape. The video is important on three planes.
- What he said.
- How he said it.
- How he reacted to seeing it today.
What he said seems to be kind of a wash — there were some parts of what he said that seemed highly dubious, but there were some parts of what he said that seemed credible. For example, it seems highly likely that his purpose is what he said it was — to talk with her about their relationship. But his story changed on what happened when she told him he couldn’t come in. At first he said that the door was unlocked, then he said that he pushed his way in, then he finally admitted that he kicked the door in. I am confident that the jury will conclude that he kicked the door in. And his statement that he shook her and “she kept hitting her head against the wall” seems to be classic minimizing — yes, he did something, but he wouldn’t admit that what he was doing was causing her to hit her head against the wall. Here, the jury will need to look at the forensic evidence to see if they believe that her head hit the wall repeatedly. From the opening statements, it would appear that this will be hotly contested.
It seemed likely that George Huguely had no idea that Yeardley Love might be dead, until he was told by Detective Reeves. That doesn’t prove that he didn’t kill her, but it can be seen as circumstantial evidence that he didn’t intend to kill her. And his grief can also be seen as circumstantial evidence that he didn’t intend to kill her, though domestic assault therapists know that an abusive partner frequently expresses intense grief over the loss of his or her partner (crocodile tears, perhaps?).
But probably the most important part was his in-court reaction.
Jurors want to know whether the defendant is remorseful for his actions, or whether he is cold and hard. Jurors want to punish monsters; they don’t particularly want to punish humans. They want to lock up dangerous people who intended to kill; they don’t feel a need to lock up the boy next door. When George Huguely reacted to the video in the same way as the jurors reacted — by crying — I will guarantee you that the jurors noticed that.
The key strategic decision for any defense team is whether the defendant takes the witness stand. Of course, the defendant does not HAVE to testify, and the judge, if the defense requests, will instruct the jury that he does not have to testify. My standard rule of defending criminal cases is to try to make out the defense without having to put the defendant on the witness stand. If my client has made a statement to the police and the prosecution plays it, the strategic question becomes, “What is the point of having him testify? What is the likelihood that he will look better after testifying than if he didn’t testify at all?”
In this case, it would not surprise me if the defense looked at today and said, “It won’t get any better than it is now. His statement includes all of the points that we want to include — he talked about being drunk, he said he just went over there to talk to her, he didn’t intend to steal when he went in, they fought, and he didn’t say anything about the fight that he needs to back away from. The jury saw him as caring about Yeardley Love, and not hating her. The jury saw him cry in May, 2010, and they saw him cry in front of them. All of the basic points of the defense have been made. He doesn’t need to testify.”
The defense would probably rather make the case about the medical evidence. The experts will disagree, and if experts disagree there is a powerful argument for reasonable doubt. That argument is, at base, that “If these guys with their advanced degrees and their scientific backgrounds can’t agree over how she got those injuries to her neck, or how she suffered bleeding in the brain stem, surely that is a reasonable doubt.” The judge will instruct the jury that on issues that are being proven by circumstantial evidence, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. So if — to take the defense’s most extreme argument — the evidence suggests two alternative hypotheses on how those fatal injuries were sustained, and the jury cannot exclude the hypothesis that suggests that Huguely did not cause her death, the jury must find him not guilty of any homicide charge. Now, it seems unlikely that the jury would decide that he did not cause her death, but the jury could decide that they are not sure beyond a reasonable doubt that her death was the product of his malice. That means that he could be guilty of nothing more than manslaughter.
I don’t know exactly what the prosecution evidence will be, but the only big pieces that remain are technical, forensic witnesses. There will be a DNA expert, who will testify that George Huguely’s skin was found under Yeardley Love’s fingernails, and that the blood all around Yeardley Love’s room was hers (all but one blood stain on a shower curtain, which probably means nothing). There will probably be a blood spatter expert, to testify about whether the blood stains are the results of drops or sprays or smears. And the medical examiner will testify about the injuries that Yeardley Love received, and the cause of her death. If these witnesses go as expected, it is possible that the defense evidence could begin on Monday. And the discussion won’t be about George Huguely, but about technical details of medicine. I understand that there is a pediatrician on the 14-member jury panel. That means that it is pretty likely that there will be at least one person on the jury — and probably, knowing Charlottesville jurors, more than one person on the jury — who will be willing to grapple with the issues of science.
If you want to read a full account of today’s testimony, go to WVIR’s coverage here.
