With one week of his murder trial completed, legal experts say the fate of George Huguely V may hinge on questions of how drunk he was on the night Yeardley Love was found dead, and what his intentions were when he went to her apartment.
Medical testimony concerning the cause of death still looms large over the case of the former University of Virginia lacrosse player accused of killing his ex-girlfriend, but the question of what charges will stick, if any, could come down to jurors having to draw conclusions about what was (or wasn?t) in Huguely?s head.
Huguely, of Chevy Chase, Md., pleaded not guilty Monday to all six charges he?s facing for his alleged role in Love?s death. Love, of Cockeysville, Md., played on the women?s lacrosse team at UVa.
The trial centers on the details of a late-night encounter between Huguely and Love in her apartment. Love was found dead early in the morning of May 3, 2010. Her roommates reported her condition as a possible alcohol overdose, but first responders noticed obvious signs of physical trauma. Huguely was arrested that same day, and has been in jail, awaiting trial, since.
Prosecutors, led by Charlottesville Commonwealth?s Attorney Dave Chapman, have depicted Huguely as being violently furious over Love?s involvement with another man, so angry that he sent her an email that included the phrase ?I should have killed you? just days before the night of her death, when he allegedly kicked a hole in a door to get in to her bedroom.
The defense has characterized Love?s death as a tragic accident, maintaining that Huguely wanted to patch things up and that he had no intention of killing her.
The most serious charge is first-degree murder, partially defined in state law as ?willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing.? The defense has asked the jury to consider the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter, a felony punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years.
If convicted of first-degree murder, Huguely could face life in prison, but experts say there are a whole host of possible outcomes.
The first week has seen testimony involving ?voluntary intoxication,? which could absolve Huguely of first-degree charges related to premeditation because he was drunk, experts say. The defense has said Huguely drank ?nonstop? on the day leading up to his encounter with Love, which could work in his favor.
Francis McQ. Lawrence, one of Huguely?s attorneys, said his client had been golfing with his teammates on that day, but was so drunk he started missing the ball. Later in the day he split a bottle of wine with his father at a downtown restaurant. Several people testified last week to Huguely being drunk in the hours before Love?s body was found.
?The criminal law is very, very skeptical of allowing that claim to be exculpatory because a lot of the time alcohol and violence go hand in hand. The one exception is that voluntary intoxication may negate premeditation in a first-degree murder case,? said Anne M. Coughlin, who specializes in criminal procedure at the UVa School of Law. ?It?s not just that he was drunk, it?s that he was so drunk that he didn?t have the capacity to form the purpose to kill,? she said, summarizing the argument available to the Huguely defense team.
However, Coughlin said, juries tend to be skeptical of intoxication claims as a defense.
?Because if people are up, moving around, walking, talking, doing purposeful things, it can be a hard sell to say I was so drunk that I wasn?t able to form the purpose to kill,? Coughlin said.
If the jury buys the argument that Huguely couldn?t have willfully killed Love because he was drunk, it won?t get him off the hook entirely.
He?s also facing a charge of felony murder ? which requires that a victim be killed in connection with another crime ? because he took Love?s laptop computer during the incident. The defense has countered by saying Huguely didn?t intend to permanently deny Love possession of the laptop. Prosecutors have cast doubt on Huguely?s claims that he took the laptop as ?collateral? to force Love to reach out to him by pointing out that police recovered the computer from a nearby trash bin.
If the prosecution can prove that Huguely caused Love?s death in the course of committing a burglary, Coughlin said, it would classify as felony murder, which can also lead to a life sentence as a first-degree offense. But the defense is already countering that narrative, as well.
?? The defense seems to be developing evidence to suggest that while he broke and entered, he did not do so for the purpose of committing the larceny,? Coughlin said. ?The larceny is what we would call an afterthought crime. So after he got in there, he then got it in his head to take the laptop.?
The physical evidence from the scene and the precise cause of death, Coughlin said, are both still unanswered questions that could go a long way toward determining Huguely?s level of responsibility.
?When it comes time for the jury to determine his mental state, they may have to rely heavily on the conduct that caused the death in order to decide what was in this young man?s mind,? Coughlin said.
The jury could end up considering a conviction for second-degree murder, which carries up to 40 years, or voluntary manslaughter, which carries up to 10 years, Coughlin said, but neither the defense nor the prosecution wants to raise either possibility.
?You don?t want to move toward the middle yet,? Coughlin said. ?Both sides want to have a very coherent narrative that they?re telling the jury.?
It?s possible that Huguely could be cleared of murder charges entirely, Coughlin said.
?It could be, as the defense is saying, the most you could convict George Hugely for, is involuntary manslaughter,? Coughlin said, summarizing the defense?s side. ?? It may have been gross, callous negligence, but that?s not purpose.?
Coughlin suggested that a first-degree murder conviction may be a tall task for the prosecution.
?I think I would say it will be difficult and it should be difficult. The Commonwealth has to meet a very exacting standard of proof,? Coughlin said. ?? Barring capital murder, it?s the most heinous crime in our penal code. You surely would want it to be a difficult burden of proof and you?d want the jury to pause long and hard.?
Mary Kelly Tate, director of the Institute for Actual Innocence at the University of Richmond School of Law, said the Huguely case is a prime example of why criminal law captures the public interest.
?It?s an inflammatory set of alleged facts by the prosecution?s theory,? said Tate, a former public defender whose institute is dedicated to exonerating the wrongfully convicted. ?And I was talking to my students about how this is a case that highlights what makes the criminal law an area subject to great emotion and high societal investment. This is just a tragic set of circumstances no matter how you cut it ? Whether there?s an acquittal or convictions, it?s just a tragic situation where a young woman is dead and a young man?s life will never be the same.?
The Huguely trial will resume Monday in Charlottesville Circuit Court.
Source: http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/2012/feb/11/huguely-different-charges-different-legal-strategi-ar-1682250/
jo paterno dead south carolina football schedule carol burnett cbs red tails red tails