Aaron Hernandez Trial Jury Question #1 | Summary and Q&A

TL;DR

The court clarifies that corroboration is needed for at least one element of the charged offense, not just a specific piece of testimony from an immunized witness.

Key Insights

• ❓ The jury seeks clarification on the requirement for corroboration regarding immunized witnesses.
• 🕰️ The court explains that corroboration is necessary for at least one element of the charged offense, not just specific pieces of testimony.
• 👮 The court cites case law to support its explanation of the corroboration requirement.

Transcript

Read and summarize the transcript of this video on Glasp Reader (beta).

Questions & Answers

Q: What was the question from the jury regarding immunized witnesses?

The jury asked if corroborating evidence is needed for a specific underlined piece of testimony from an immunized witness to convict the defendant.

Q: What is the Commonwealth's argument regarding corroborating evidence?

The Commonwealth argues that no corroboration is required for the specific piece of testimony mentioned by the jury.

Q: What does the defense argue regarding corroborating evidence?

The defense believes that corroboration is necessary but only for at least one essential element of the charged offense.

Q: What does the court cite to support its explanation of the corroboration requirement?

The court cites case law, including Commonwealth versus Aaron (70 Mass app 667), to explain that corroboration is needed to support the credibility of immunized witnesses, but it does not have to prove the commission of the crime.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• The court receives a note from the jury asking if corroborating evidence is required for a specific piece of testimony from an immunized witness.

• The Commonwealth argues that no corroborating evidence is necessary, while the defense believes corroboration is needed for at least one element of the charged offense.

• The court cites case law and explains that corroboration is required to support the credibility of immunized witnesses, but it does not have to prove the commission of the crime.