The Virginia Attorney General’s office submitted a brief to the Virginia Court of Appeals this week giving the state’s opinion on the appeal effort of University student George Huguely. The former Virginia lacrosse player was found guilty in February 2012 of grand larceny and the second degree murder of his on-again, off-again girlfriend Univeristy student Yeardley Love.
Huguely was sentenced to 23 years in prison in August 2012. His attorneys filed a motion to appeal this summer, and a judge granted him the right to appear before an appeals court based on claims about the right to an impartial jury and his right to counsel.
The claim that Huguely was denied a right to counsel when the one of his attorneys fell ill and they were denied a postponement, the state’s brief says, is invalid based on the testimony by his other attorney that Huguely “was prepared and ready to proceed.”
Huguely’s lawyers also said that they could not fully ensure Huguely received an impartial jury, because they were not allowed to ask jurors whether a description of “consumption of alcohol or uncomplimentary description of Love’s behavior” would “cause [the potential juror] to think that we were blaming or attacking Ms. Love.”
The state said this question was rightfully disallowed in the original trial because it would not necessarily reveal a “relationship, interest, opinion or prejudice.”
The state also countered the appeal that certain jurors were not dismissed even though they had “formed and retained an opinion that Huguely was guilty based on media coverage of the case.”
They argued legal precedent proved it is “sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based upon the evidence presented in court.”
There is currently no scheduled date for arguments in the Appellate Court.
Read More
Administrators and faculty paint conflicting pictures of May 4 encampment clearing
By Cecilia Mould | 2 days agoThe details contested between the town halls included the clarity of the University’s tent policy and the presence of suspicious individuals at the encampment.
Faculty Senate calls for an external review of May 4 clearing of encampment
By Priya Kommu | 2 days agoSenators had questions about the lack of direct communication between University administrators and the students and faculty present at the encampment.
University's last minute update to EHS tent regulations document creates confusion, frustration
By Arshiya Pant | 2 days agoRyan said that he did not believe there was confusion among protesters about the permissibility of tents due to warnings from University officials on several occasions to remove tents.
