Aaron Hernandez charged with 1st degree murder; released by Patriots
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
- Status
PaulinMyrBch said:
I think people are overreacting--Ortiz was always going to be a sketchy witness ("yeah I was asleep and not paying attention when we pulled into the abandoned industrial area--honest I had no idea what was going on") but the evidence that's been presented other than his testimony is pretty damning.
The biggest thing Hernandez has going for him is that it seems to be the case that in celebrity trials the jury wants CSI proof being any possible doubt, but he's had that going for him since day one.
Shelterdog said:
What's more likely to favor him is that the prosecution might overcharge, and/or try to play to a TV audience. That seems to be a more recent important trend than the "CSI effect." In fact, I'd call the CSI effect simply a resetting of what "reasonable doubt" ought to be. I.e., if there is *any* reasonable doubt as to *any* of the necessary elements of the crime charged, it should be "not guilty."
From what I've read, it seems like there is a very solid case that Hernandez was involved in Lloyd's murder. On the day of trial though, it depends on what the prosecution will actually be charging him with. If there's an accessory theory on the table, AH is toast.
I agree with you that the loss of Ortiz isn't that important, for various reasons.
Rovin Romine said:
It may be that celebrity/tv trials are where jurors do in fact apply a reasonable doubt standard, and that in a run of the mill assault case or something (where the defense lawyer is not as capable as you are, of course), some juries apply something a lot more like a preponderance standard.
Shelterdog said:
Thanks for the compliment, but as to the bolded, I think you're also absolutely correct on this.
Humans have a very good equity sense, and they also have a good "who do I believe (in) more" sense. Or to say it another way, given two close options, they choose pretty well. (Even better if you get 6 or 9 or 12 of them to try to come to a common sense consensus on something.)
The "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" standard isn't how we normally think though, and so defense attorneys have to hammer it over and over and over. The average person can absolutely "get" the concept and apply it, but it's sometimes an effort for them to remember to do so, especially in an emotionally charged case, or a case where the jurors think the defendant is both unsavory and lying, etc. If a defense attorney does not hammer "reasonable doubt" over and over and over, the jurors are likely to sort of naturally fall back on their "who do I believe more" ability, or their "If I had to guess, which scenario would I think is more likely" ability - which is the one we use in everyday life, for issues with which child or coworker or friend or used car salesman to believe.
If I was limited to selecting jurors on the basis of only one issue, I'd pick going over the reasonable doubt standard with the jury. It's that important.
I said things got interesting, not the path to freedom just opened up a speed pass lane.Shelterdog said:
Nothing worse for a prosecutor than to have shit witnesses, unfortunately people don't usually go around murdering others with Mother Teresa in the car. Where the strength of the physical evidence is still the key to the case, it is all circumstantial, and the one guy they wanted to very coherently piece it all together for the jury is such a liar they are tired of talking to him.
RR, what would you rather have at this point? A witness to cross who has given conflicting sworn statements and possibly offered to lie in a proffer.....or an absent guy to pin it on?
PaulinMyrBch said:
Depends on the physical evidence, but, in general, most likely an absent guy.
I say this because you can beat up a witness and blame the crime on the same witness in the closing arguments.
However, there's always the risk that while the jury will think the Ortizlike witness is a liar, they also might determine that they don't think that the witness pulled the trigger. Some people come across as just too timid - obviously not the alpha males of the group. If the jury forms that impression, it narrows down the possibilities. (I actually did an attempted murder trial which had a dynamic very similar to this.)
So, in the AH case, probably an absent witness. Unless I could get a huge amount of traction out of the witness (police coaching, bad faith investigations, some evidence of police bias against the defendant, that sort of thing - but it would have to tie into a greater theory of defense.)
***
There's a rule in FL that says you can't imply that the testimony of an absent party (which you could have subpoenaed) will be *favorable,* but you can certainly point out that the absent party *isn't* there, supposedly saw everything, and didn't testify. It's a very fine line, but it can be walked. You then hammer this as another thing that could have made the case clearer, but alas, we still exist in the fuzzy world of reasonable doubt. I don't know whether there is an analogous MA rule or not. Having or not having it might make a difference.
***
From the prosecutorial point of view, I wonder how necessary Ortiz would be. Even if he's lying/offering conflicting stories about the shooting itself, there's a lot of value to the motivation and the events leading up to the shooting. If the prosecution is going for an accomplice theory, I think Ortiz could offer powerful testimony for the jury to hear. Basically, it tells the story right up to the fingerprinting over who did the actual shooting, then tells the story of everyone covering it up. Hammer the message that it does not matter who the killer was, and you've got a conviction.
That was general thought, I'd rather have the absent guy mainly because that creates an unknown in a jurors mind and a good defense attorney, speaking last, will fill the blank. I knew you'd have a good handle on the ins and outs as to why.
I was thinking about the storyline evidence Ortiz could provide and I can only assume for the State to have sacrificed the value of that (assuming they truly have), his inconsistency must have been classic. To say we won't get near a guy who can provide before, during, and after evidence is pretty damning. I'm guessing there is some crap in those reports we haven't heard yet.
I was thinking about the storyline evidence Ortiz could provide and I can only assume for the State to have sacrificed the value of that (assuming they truly have), his inconsistency must have been classic. To say we won't get near a guy who can provide before, during, and after evidence is pretty damning. I'm guessing there is some crap in those reports we haven't heard yet.
PaulinMyrBch said:
Sorry if it looked like I was targeting you, I was vague but was thinking about the twittersphere (Ben Volin, for example, said that he'd thought since June that Hernandez had been overcharged and would walk; PFT claims this is a crushing blow, etc..).
Isn't there some law in mass where just being at the murder implicates you for the murder? Apologize if I'm wrong, I just remember hearing that in an article about this case.
southshoresoxfan said:
I'd be surprised. Mere presence while a crime is committed is not enough to implicate an individual. (I'm not saying they can't be wrongly charged, but if it's proven that, for example, someone was "just there" while their buddy tweaked out and did something crazy, there should't be any criminal liability.) (There are rare exceptions to this, particularly with certain crimes brought by the FDA.)
Most likely the article was talking about "accomplice" theory.
In general, you can view "involvement" in a crime as making someone potentially criminally liable for that crime. There are a lot of wrinkles in this and the names for the parties change according to the various legal jurisdictions and the way they approach such things. For example - If you "conspire" to do something bad and help it happen, you're liable, whether you're there or not when it happened. If you are "just there" but spontaneously help with the crime, you're liable. If you cover up the crime afterward, or knowingly benefit from crime, or aid the criminal in avoiding capture, you are also liable. If you are "closely involved" with the crime, then the vast majority of the time you'll be liable for the whole and complete crime, as if you did the original crime yourself. If you're not closely involved with the crime, sometimes you're liable for the crime minus a certain degree of severity, or liable for another crime not linked to the original one (like dealing in stolen goods or obstruction). Depends on the facts (what and how much you did to help the crime/criminal) and the laws of the jurisdiction you're in.
Hernandez has a lot of exposure under accomplice theory. it means (as axx pointed out) that if the jury thinks Hernandez was somehow in on this, before, during or after, he'll likely be found guilty of the full and actual crime that was found to be committed. Given the reported facts, you can make a strong argument for all three of those. Each separate one is a different avenue under which he can be found liable for something.
***
BTW, this is why a group of guys can't kill someone, and then all point fingers at each other and create reasonable doubt as to "who the real killer actually is." Accomplice theory sweeps everyone together and makes them all liable in full for the murder, even if one of them, logically, only could have been the getaway driver. Everyone's on the hook equally.
Ha!smastroyin said:
I think he's thinking about felony murder, though. This crime doesn't really fit that definition. If three guys rob a bank together, which is a crime in and of itself, and one of the guys kills a teller, all 3 of the robbers would be on the hook for murder. Just being in a car with 3 other guys, and all of a sudden one guy decides to get out and kill another guy would not fit felony murder, because simply being in a car with 3 other guys is not a crime.
Jeez, another associate shot - Alexander Bradley, shot once by Hernandez in Florida, gets it again.
http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-hartford-shooting-alexander-bradley-0204-20140203,0,5786193.story
http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-hartford-shooting-alexander-bradley-0204-20140203,0,5786193.story
My guess is Aaron Hernandez was likely behind this even from jail. I think Bradley knows a lot of the south end murders and he is the only one who can be a star witness in that double murder case.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
jsinger121 said:
Regardless, I thin it's pretty clear that Bradley's character is in question going forward. By walking to his car, grabbing a gun, and randomly shooting it off into a building, I think it's safe to say that this is a win for the Hernandez defense attorney's (unless they can prove he was involved, of course).
In my opinion a few things are going on with these tapes and this motion.
The prosecution is already in possession of recordings that are possibly incriminating, and it appears they do not have the right to those without a court order. So they've got dirty evidence they are looking for a court order to clean up. Problem is you can't do that. You can't prove the need for evidence by saying we know the evidence will reveal "x, y, and z" because we've already illegally obtained it....so if you'll just grant a court order, it will all be cleaned and pressed. Now that the judge is on to how it worked, she is going to hold them to a very high standard when they go to request the tapes in a future motion.
Prosecution probably figures if she throws out what we've already obtained, but grants us access to tapes we haven't listened to, they might be better off if AH continued to say incriminating things. Also, the reason they didn't turn the tapes over is two fold. First, they turn them over and the attorneys tell AH to shut up, so the incriminating conversations stop. But also, they turn them over and the attorneys scream "how the fuck did you get these?" and file a motion for sanctions and shit hits the fan on the defenses terms.
What you're seeing in this case is a bright light on a little city. All across America, there are sheriffs and DA's and jailers doing all sorts of things that make their lives easier, but essentially circumvent the rules of how things are supposed to be done. Things just keep on and eventually the line between habit and procedure gets blurred. Not a huge problem when the perp is a local drug addict stealing his aunts jewelry to buy smack and he's represented by the public defender. But when a celebrity kills someone in your jurisdiction, then you get the bright lights, cameras in the courtroom, and a defense team that is getting paid to shit on your every move. A small town DA isn't used to scrutiny on every move. Its possible the tapes got plopped on his desk and he was immediately between a rock and a hard place. Who knows, but they've got to jump through some hoops they aren't used to dealing with now. Everyone's watching.
The prosecution is already in possession of recordings that are possibly incriminating, and it appears they do not have the right to those without a court order. So they've got dirty evidence they are looking for a court order to clean up. Problem is you can't do that. You can't prove the need for evidence by saying we know the evidence will reveal "x, y, and z" because we've already illegally obtained it....so if you'll just grant a court order, it will all be cleaned and pressed. Now that the judge is on to how it worked, she is going to hold them to a very high standard when they go to request the tapes in a future motion.
Prosecution probably figures if she throws out what we've already obtained, but grants us access to tapes we haven't listened to, they might be better off if AH continued to say incriminating things. Also, the reason they didn't turn the tapes over is two fold. First, they turn them over and the attorneys tell AH to shut up, so the incriminating conversations stop. But also, they turn them over and the attorneys scream "how the fuck did you get these?" and file a motion for sanctions and shit hits the fan on the defenses terms.
What you're seeing in this case is a bright light on a little city. All across America, there are sheriffs and DA's and jailers doing all sorts of things that make their lives easier, but essentially circumvent the rules of how things are supposed to be done. Things just keep on and eventually the line between habit and procedure gets blurred. Not a huge problem when the perp is a local drug addict stealing his aunts jewelry to buy smack and he's represented by the public defender. But when a celebrity kills someone in your jurisdiction, then you get the bright lights, cameras in the courtroom, and a defense team that is getting paid to shit on your every move. A small town DA isn't used to scrutiny on every move. Its possible the tapes got plopped on his desk and he was immediately between a rock and a hard place. Who knows, but they've got to jump through some hoops they aren't used to dealing with now. Everyone's watching.
I just keep getting the feeling this guy is going to be acquitted. Can they convict him of a lesser charge or just what they have charged him with?
If he is acquitted of murder, the gun charges still will probably stand and he'll get significant jail time.southshoresoxfan said:
axx said:
There is literally no chance this will happen.
Paulin's take is close to my own on this. There is an "inevitable discovery" argument the prosecution can use - if a trail of evidence would have lead to PC for the phone calls they can argue they would have inevitably discovered them anyway.
I am unclear if AH had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the jail calls however. If he didn't (i.e., he was warned they could be recorded and used against him) there's really no reason why the prosecution can't be told about their contents.
I'm unclear as well, and just as a warning to everyone, I'm not likely to research the details of every ruling as it applies to that jurisdiction. My take is general, Rovine's will be more detailed, and I'm guessing neither of us will do the research to speak intelligently regarding Mass law in advance of every motion argument.
I'm not here predicting he's going to walk, just that the case will be interesting to follow on a few levels.
I'm not here predicting he's going to walk, just that the case will be interesting to follow on a few levels.
axx said:
I know that RR already addressed this, but I'd love to hear you actually make that case.
If all the prosecutors had were the cell phone and video evidence that Hernandez tried and failed to destroy, they would have more than enough to hold him for trial and to convict him. To claim otherwise is simply a fantasy.
I'm not a lawyer so this may be a retarded question.Rovin Romine said:
If law enforcement, run by the state is charging him and the prison, run by the state has recorded Phone calls from the state run prison why does the prosecutor even have to go to a judge to get them?
NortheasternPJ said:
I think it's a good question. Basically it depends on a couple of variables.
Via the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution, a person has a right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. That's been interpreted to mean that if a person has "a reasonable expectation of privacy" in something, it's protected from a warrantless search. (A reasonable expectation of privacy would be a personal journal you keep in a safe in your house, whereas you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in something you broadcast on a billboard in Times Square.)
For the state to be able to intrude into those protected things (wire-tapping, searching your email, searching your house for personal letters or photographs, etc.) the state has to go to a judge and get a warrant.
The idea behind this is that the US Government is a system of checks and balances, and the executive branch (which includes the police) cannot write their own ticket insofar as to how far they can intrude into someone's life. Instead, they have to show the judicial branch of government (a judge) that they have "probable cause" to believe a crime has taken place or will be taking place. If the judge agrees that a reasonable person, on the basis of the facts presented, in their whole and proper context, would think it likely that a crime had occurred or would occur, the warrant will be issued.
The kicker is the "exclusionary rule" - basically it says if the prosecution violates the protections offered by the 4th, they can't use the evidence they've illegally seized against you OR any other evidence that flows from it (often referred to as "the fruit of the poisonous tree.")
There are a ton of wrinkles in there though, at every single step. Including situations in which the 4th does not apply (usually called "an exception").
Wiki has a decent overview. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
**
With AH, the question is basically, "does he have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the jail calls?" If so, is there independent evidence (apart from the calls which were already heard) that would lead a prosecutor to believe the calls exist, and that they have some bearing on whether or not a crime was committed? If so, is the evidence of such weight that it amounts to probable cause upon which a warrant should be issued.
If AH does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, there is no constitutional issue regarding using his recorded statements against him at trial. (Although there may be procedural objections.)
If AH does, and the prosecution does not go about obtaining the evidence "the right way," the risk is that the recorded statements and anything they lead to will not be able to be used against him at trial. For example, if AH implicates someone totally new - "Joe," and the investigation of "Joe" turns up the murder weapon and a videotape of the shooting, all that evidence (and any new charges against Joe) would be excluded - i.e., not useable. There are possible work-arounds to the exclusion of evidence, but it's better for the prosecution not to be fighting those battles.
So it sounds to me like the prosecution is trying to play it safe by getting a warrant, whether or not they can argue that AH didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or whether or not the statements on the tapes fall into some kind of exception to the warrant requirement.
Rovin Romine said:
Adjusted the bolding to ask about the reasonable expectation of privacy issue on the calls. Since the calls include repeated warnings that they are taped it'd be a bit of a stretch to claim that someone expected privacy in those calls. That warning about the taping seems almost Miranda-ish to me, so I guess I agree that the prosecution is being extremely by the book to not leave grounds for appeal or get things thrown out. If you tell me using that phone over there will be recorded and I say incriminating things while using that phone, well guess that makes me a dumb criminal.
PaulinMyr's estimation of the not ready for the bright lights crew also makes sense to me, which is a bit in tension with Rovine's take, so I have no idea which is more likely.
KiltedFool said:
In my general experience there's usually a warning, thus no R.E.P. - and yes, you're right, the warning functions pretty much like Miranda does. (However, I have no specific experience as to the facility that AH is in.)
Paulin's leading point (based on the motion and actions of the prosecution) is this:
And I agree that it seems the prosecution is behaving that way. It could be in an abundance of caution, or it could be something else.
***
There may also be a particular rule of criminal procedure/statute for MA which regulates how jail phone calls are requested which accounts for both Paulin's take and mine.
(We have not one public defender or former prosecutor from MA on this board? Inconceivable!)
The SJC has stated rather clearly that adult prisoners and pretrial detainees have no reasonable expectation of privacy in jailhouse calls where they are warned that the calls are being recorded, and the recordings are made for legitimate reasons unrelated to prosecution, e.g., public safety. Whether this applies to juveniles is an open question (see the John Odgren case), but the same framework will apply. The 2009 Hart case discusses the framework for subpoenaing recordings from sheriffs for use at trial. In short, failure to follow proper subpoena procedures is not grounds for suppression absent prejudice to the defendant. Prejudice in this context refers to sufficient notice to prepare a defense, not whether the calls are damning.
Rovin Romine said:
Yea, based on the articles regarding the ruling I was accepting as fact that for some reason they don't have the right to the calls. I have no idea why.
Getting a better handle on it. This article touches on the procedure needed.
In short, it appears AH has no expectation of privacy with the use of the jail phones. He obviously knows it, why else would he be talking in code. However, for the calls to be used in a trial, they must be subpoenaed by the DA from the Sheriff's office. Since these recordings arrived on the DA's desk because someone in the sheriffs office thought they might be helpful and just took them over there, that procedure was not followed. So the DA was in court attempting to make a "showing" to meet the burden of proof to properly subpoena the records of the phone calls. The judge denied that, saying the affidavit they provided was not enough.
The burden of proof for this is most likely something along the lines that the information sought must be material and relevant to the case at hand (don't know the specifics of Mass law). They were attempting to meet that burden by having an affidavit from someone at the jail who had the right to listen to the phone recordings. Since they allege that AH was speaking in cryptic form regarding facts of the case and control over others involved, its shaky. How is someone not involved with the investigation able to say this AH said this and we believe that is code for x, y, and z? The people that do know the facts of the case at this point are not supposed to be in possession of the tapes yet, so piecing this together in a way the judge believes it may have been a proper path for discovery is dicey.
On top of that, if the tapes are truly vague and cryptic, it is going to be difficult for the judge to rule they are material and relevant to the case. We've got an overzealous jailer looking to help the DA, that much we know. But IMO, its going to have to be clear for the judge to allow it, as something like this is a good candidate for reversible error on appeal.
Its beginning to appear that its possible this DA is in over his head. No control over the sheriffs department. Sits on the tapes for two weeks without letting the court or defense know he has obtained evidence he's not supposed to have. Its possible he didn't immediately know he wasn't allowed to have it. Then not telling the court or defense that you have it until you're actually on TV in a hearing? Means two things, he didn't outline it in his written filed motion, and he thought he'd win the motion and would never have to mention it. Which leads me to... then not being able to meet the burden of proof for a simple subpoena when you have the results of what the subpoena would show?? This has all sorts of fuck up written on it. Not a good day for the DA.
In short, it appears AH has no expectation of privacy with the use of the jail phones. He obviously knows it, why else would he be talking in code. However, for the calls to be used in a trial, they must be subpoenaed by the DA from the Sheriff's office. Since these recordings arrived on the DA's desk because someone in the sheriffs office thought they might be helpful and just took them over there, that procedure was not followed. So the DA was in court attempting to make a "showing" to meet the burden of proof to properly subpoena the records of the phone calls. The judge denied that, saying the affidavit they provided was not enough.
The burden of proof for this is most likely something along the lines that the information sought must be material and relevant to the case at hand (don't know the specifics of Mass law). They were attempting to meet that burden by having an affidavit from someone at the jail who had the right to listen to the phone recordings. Since they allege that AH was speaking in cryptic form regarding facts of the case and control over others involved, its shaky. How is someone not involved with the investigation able to say this AH said this and we believe that is code for x, y, and z? The people that do know the facts of the case at this point are not supposed to be in possession of the tapes yet, so piecing this together in a way the judge believes it may have been a proper path for discovery is dicey.
On top of that, if the tapes are truly vague and cryptic, it is going to be difficult for the judge to rule they are material and relevant to the case. We've got an overzealous jailer looking to help the DA, that much we know. But IMO, its going to have to be clear for the judge to allow it, as something like this is a good candidate for reversible error on appeal.
Its beginning to appear that its possible this DA is in over his head. No control over the sheriffs department. Sits on the tapes for two weeks without letting the court or defense know he has obtained evidence he's not supposed to have. Its possible he didn't immediately know he wasn't allowed to have it. Then not telling the court or defense that you have it until you're actually on TV in a hearing? Means two things, he didn't outline it in his written filed motion, and he thought he'd win the motion and would never have to mention it. Which leads me to... then not being able to meet the burden of proof for a simple subpoena when you have the results of what the subpoena would show?? This has all sorts of fuck up written on it. Not a good day for the DA.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Average Reds said:
Somewhere in the middle pages of this thread, a few days into the saga, is an extensive list of physical and witness-based evidence that the police are in possession of, which the DA presented at arraignment. It was itemized, it was long, and it sounded extremely solid. At the publication of that list at arraignment, the last AH defenders / hopefuls on this thread finally flipped to a "well, that's it then, fuck that guy" attitude.
It's not the cell phone / video evidence that I think puts AH away for the rest of his natural life, it's the totality of that list, if submitted as evidence at trial. If someone goes and digs it up and quotes it on this thread, that would probably be helpful to interpreting the new developments here, because then nobody would be confused as to the question of whether AH is toast or stands a chance if Evidence X or Y is tossed. He's toast. The only question is how thoroughly burned his proverbial toast is, and how many others are toast along with him.
What we're discussing regarding the calls is just "another" piece of evidence. It wasn't making much sense from a procedural standpoint, so it probably got some extra attention than normal. There is still extensive evidence in this case that places him at the scene and with the victim, and its strong circumstantial evidence.
There is often a misconception among people not closely connected to the legal system, that some of the smallest issues are grounds for dismissal. It doesn't work that way. Sure there are loopholes that come into play on occasion, but loopholes are usually a fairly serious constitutional matter of protection. People tend to think if a case got dismissed before the merits made it to the jury, that its somehow a strong case dismissed on a loophole, when the fact is it was usually a weak case or one that was very poorly prepared.
This is a strong case, but it is missing something that could make it stronger, like a murder weapon traced to AH, a credible witness in the car, or a jailhouse call admission of culpability. Those would all help seal the deal, but it's a strong case without additional evidence.
I would add that its weaker at this point than I thought it was after the outlined the evidence in the warrant, but that is due to Ortiz going south. A call where AH admits some guilt would offset that setback IMO.
There is often a misconception among people not closely connected to the legal system, that some of the smallest issues are grounds for dismissal. It doesn't work that way. Sure there are loopholes that come into play on occasion, but loopholes are usually a fairly serious constitutional matter of protection. People tend to think if a case got dismissed before the merits made it to the jury, that its somehow a strong case dismissed on a loophole, when the fact is it was usually a weak case or one that was very poorly prepared.
This is a strong case, but it is missing something that could make it stronger, like a murder weapon traced to AH, a credible witness in the car, or a jailhouse call admission of culpability. Those would all help seal the deal, but it's a strong case without additional evidence.
I would add that its weaker at this point than I thought it was after the outlined the evidence in the warrant, but that is due to Ortiz going south. A call where AH admits some guilt would offset that setback IMO.
We need pinned someplace why this is not OJ.MentalDisabldLst said:
Reason 1 (or 2) is that AH, unlike OJ, has zero goodwill to draw on and elicits the same amount sympathy. Even the "massive overreaction" wing of our village, to which you humorously refer, long ago came to terms with what everyone KNOWS in his or her gut -- this guy has killed at least one human being.
Reason 2 (or 1) is that no place in the Commonwealth feels any need to set AH free to flip off the man or make any other kind of sociopolitical statement. And if there were such a place, no DA would be stupid enough to set the trial venue there.
MentalDisabldLst said:
First, I do think AH is going to serve lots of jail time because of the possession of firearms issue. You don't need to be a lawyer to see that as the State's "if all else fails" backup plan.
Second, IANAL but lots of itemized, long lists SOUND "extremely solid". Whether it is or is not remains to be seen.
Third,
PaulinMyrBch said:
Based on my reading of the legal experts in this thread, a declaration of "burnt toast" sounds premature. Being anecdotally "sure" that AH killed someone isn't a guaranteed conviction and as pointed out above, there's still more than a few problems with the State's case. This is a "trial by jury" which means 12 people who were A.) unaware of who Aaron Hernandez is but lived in MA and B.) too dumb to get out of jury duty. No outcome would surprise me.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
OK, it's worth some reminders here... this is what AH is up against, with some appropriate editorializing from smatroyin:
He's toast. Extra crispy toast.
RedOctober3829 said:
smastroyin said:
CaptainLaddie said:
He's toast. Extra crispy toast.
MentalDisabldLst said:
Especially because even if he isn't the actual shooter, accomplice theory sweeps him up into the crime. Just the actions after the shooting would do it.
There's always a chance he may walk on first degree murder (although I can easily see a conviction if the above facts are true), but unless something truly freaky happens in the prosecution of the case, he's going down on the weapons, obstruction, or as an accomplice. ("Freaky" would be something like evidence getting lost, a random confession by an unknown 3rd party, a huge evidence planting scandal attaching to the investigating officers.)
Given the overall fact pattern the judge will likely max him out for anything he is convicted of.
- Status