Huguely must wait until Wednesday -- at least -- to hear his verdict

After hearing testimony and closing statements, jurors in George Huguely’s murder trial decided against deliberating Saturday night, and will reconvene Wednesday morning to determine Huguely’s fate.

Huguely, 24, is charged with first-degree murder, felony murder, robbery, burglary, statutory burglary and grand larceny in connection with the death of Yeardley Love, his ex-girlfriend. Both were fourth-year University of Virginia lacrosse players mere weeks from graduation when Love was found dead in her apartment just after 2 a.m. on May 3, 2010. She was 22 years old.

After the conclusion of testimony, but before the defense officially rested, the jury was dismissed and Huguely waived his right to testify on his own behalf.

The defense rested just after 2 p.m. Saturday afternoon. After Judge Edward Hogshire briefed the jury on their instructions for deliberation, the trial turned to the prosecution’s closing argument.

“There isn’t any evidence that [Love] invited even the slightest contact from George Huguely,” Commonwealth’s Attorney Dave Chapman said in his closing statement. He was visibly choked up as he addressed the jury.

“The evidence is Yeardley was effectively disabled while she was lying on the bed,” Chapman told jurors. He noted that though Love lost a lot of blood before her body was found, there are no visible swipe marks of blood to indicate that she had attempted to move from her position. Chapman took that as evidence that she was unconscious at the time Huguely left her.

Chapman also noted that Huguely had “an incredible amount to drink” before visiting Love’s apartment, but asked jurors: “Does [alcohol] make you do something new and different that you’ve never done before?”

Chapman reminded jurors of prior instances of violence between Love and Huguely and focused on the incident in February 2010 where a friend walked in on Huguely restraining Love in what resembled a chokehold.

“Under the influence of alcohol [Huguely] can and will behave aggressively,” Chapman said.

Chapman’s argument then turned to the topic of Love’s computer, which was hotly debated during testimony. If Love’s computer was worth $200 or more at the time it was taken from her apartment, Huguely could be guilty of a felony. If he killed someone in commission of a felony, even accidentally, he can be found guilty of felony murder according to Virginia code.

In police interrogation, Huguely said that Love answered the door, but that statement has since been disregarded by both the defense and the prosecution. Chapman said that Love was sleeping in her apartment when Huguely came in uninvited.

Chapman cited Huguely’s interrogation tape, in which he said Love was “freaking out” when she saw him in her room that night. He reminded jurors that in the tape, Huguely physically demonstrated how she recoiled to a corner of her room when he entered.

“Isn’t that a scene from a horror movie?” Chapman asked jurors. “Can you imagine what it’s like for the person inside [the bedroom]?”

Chapman briefly recounted the damage done to Love’s body, and showed photographs taken of Love’s face after she was found. In court Love’s sister, Lexie Love, broke down in tears at the mention of her younger sister’s injuries.

Chapman suggested that Love would not have let Huguely take her computer had she been conscious and able to object. He also said that if she had been able, Love likely would have screamed or called for help. Her neighbor, who testified in the first week of the trial, said she heard no such sounds.

“You don’t have to be able to move to be able to scream,” Chapman said. “You just have to be conscious.”

Huguely rolled his eyes at least twice during Chapman’s closing arguments.

In his own closing argument, Francis McQ. Lawrence, one of Huguely’s attorneys, told jurors that they were “the only 14 people in the world who know what happened” between Huguely and Love.

He described the 14th Street Northwest area as a “20-something ghetto,” and said the prosecution does not understand the “texture” of college life, which includes late-night arguments. Lawrence also said that violence was characteristic of Huguely and Love’s relationship.

He described an altercation the week prior to Love’s death in which she found Huguely conversing with two other women in his apartment, walked in uninvited and beat Huguely over the head with her purse.

“This isn’t about making Yeardley the bad guy,” Lawrence told jurors. He added, however, that she “didn’t have any problem” entering Huguely’s apartment uninvited.

In his rebuttal, Chapman took issue to Lawrence’s apparent attempt to equate this incident to the conflict that culminated in Love’s death.

“I submit it’s unlikely that none of us have ever touched someone we love in a rude manner,” Lawrence told the jury.

“George played a role in what was overwhelmingly a tragedy,” he told jurors, but reminded them that there was nothing stealthy about Huguely’s behavior that night. Love’s downstairs neighbor testified previously that his footsteps were loud and noticeable as he left Love’s apartment.

In regards to Huguely’s charges, he repeated that Huguely’s “intent” was never to rob or physically harm Love.

“It’s an altercation that, coupled with alcohol … resulted in positional asphyxia,” Lawrence said. Taking the computer, he said, was “an afterthought.”

“He didn’t kill her. He left her there with her alive. That’s not in dispute,” Lawrence said. “There’s not an intentional killing because he did not leave her dead when he left.”

Lawrence’s argument was rambling and at times hard to follow, prompting bored looks from jurors. Several audience members nodded off or left the room altogether. Even Huguely himself checked the time on the court’s wall clock.

After an hour and a half of argument, Hogshire asked Lawrence to “bring it to a conclusion.”

Lawrence asked jurors to carefully consider convicting Huguely of involuntary manslaughter rather than first- or second-degree murder.

When Chapman had the opportunity to rebut, he asked jurors to consider second-degree murder, or felony murder in commission of a robbery.

“When somebody’s little girl doesn’t wake up the next morning because of someone’s criminal actions, the law is going to be followed here in the city of Charlottesville, and we rely on the citizens to do it,” Chapman told the jury.

Court adjourned for the evening at 7 p.m. Hogshire gave jurors the option to stay and deliberate during the night, or to wait until Wednesday morning to begin their discussion. They quickly decided to reconvene at the later date.

Deliberations will not resume until the middle of next week because Monday is a holiday and Tuesday is set aside for grand jury hearings. Hogshire said he would not hold court on a Sunday.

Deliberation will begin at 9 a.m. on Wednesday.