UVA Lacrosse Murder Trial: Did the Jury and George Huguely have a Moment?
The prosecution's theory of murder against former University of Virginia lacrosse star, George Huguely, is simple. The state claims that, in a rage, he brutally murdered his ex-girlfriend, Yeardley Love.
Huguely, for his part, contends, that they both consumed large amounts of alcohol and that Love was also taking Adderall which caused her to "freak out." Huguely claims that they might have struggled but he never intended in kill her (no premeditation for Murder 1).
On the last trial date, the prosecution decided to play Huguely's interrogation video showing when the police told him that Love was dead. On the video and live in court, Huguely began to cry. His open emotion caused Love's sister to cry in an inconsolable fashion. More importantly, at least 2 jurors were seen in tears.
So was this a positive moment for the defense? Was Huguely's pain enough to humanize him for the juror and cause him to become a sympathetic figure?
Many court observers seem to think so but trial moments can be fleeting. Just because there was shared pain over the death of Love does not mean that the jury will nullify a murder charge. The court will also instruct the jurors that sympathy has no place in their deliberations. It seemed to me that inexperienced trial reporters may have placed too much emphasis on a passing emotional moment.
These same commentators failed to recognize the brutality of the alleged crime and how badly beaten Love was at the time of her death. Huguely will have the jury believe that her injuries were self-inflicted or from lacrosse games. But the jurors will see that Huguely literally may be put Love's head through a door in his rage.
That horrible image will last longer than a moment of tears.
My name is Christopher Fusco. I am the managing partner of Callahan & Fusco, LLC with offices in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.