Aaron Hernandez Convicted of Murder; Sentenced to the New York Jets
Okay, so it's not that bad-- sentenced to life in prison.
Unless you can prove bias/bribery/corruption or the like, it's near impossible to get a new trial based on evidence about jury deliberations. Essentially, the jurors can talk after the verdict, but the court can't listen. There was one case (not in MA I think) where there was pretty good proof unearthed after the verdict that a juror was high/drunk for most of the trial and deliberation, and the court's response was essentially "so what?"Harry Hooper said:
I understand and forgive nervous laughter, but it's gone on way too long here. Plus, the more they talk the more likely they'll step on a landmine and provide an angle for a mistrial/appeal.
There can be no mistrial any more since the trial is over.Harry Hooper said:
I understand and forgive nervous laughter, but it's gone on way too long here. Plus, the more they talk the more likely they'll step on a landmine and provide an angle for a mistrial/appeal.
joe dokes said:
There are very very few things a juror can say post-trial that would serve as a successful basis for an appeal.
A weighty moment indeed, although I don't think this is one of those situations. This will be flushed by the next news cycle.RedOctober3829 said:Imagine being the foreman of the jury reading that verdict knowing you are breaking the news to the world and your voice will be heard for years to come.
In the federal rules (FRE 606(b)), this ("extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention") is one of the three exceptions to the general ban on jurors providing testimony to undermine a verdict. The other two are improper outside influence (e.g., bribe, see above) and mistake on the verdict form.Harry Hooper said:
IANAL, but if the jury said something like they factored the S. End shootings into the guilty verdict, that wouldn't be grounds for appeal?
Yeah, about that:HomeRunBaker said:Justice served. Regardless of the issues being questioned I think we all knew in the end he was guilty. Glad our system got it right this time......they don't always.
Thanks again to Rovin and others for the thread!
Yeah OJ and Robert Blake are chuckling at this post. Celebrities have the means to hire the talent to get them off. This isn't new. Lol at him ever being found guilty in a court of law on the murder regardless of how many Sosh experts post about it.
Oh there is no doubt in my mind Aaron killed Lloyd the Pats move was a no-brainer considering the amount of circumstantial evidence. I'm referring to a jury hearing the case and agreeing on a guilty verdict......I'll change my screen name to "Litigious Society" the day that occurs.
I don't begrudge them. I think some silliness after a week of tough deliberations over a murder conviction is completely ordinary. They are having a rush of relief.Harry Hooper said:
An absolutely obscene gigglefest going on there. Confirmation once again that you hope you never get dragged into court where your fate is in such hands.
HomeRunBaker, on 15 Apr 2015 - 10:28 AM, said:
Justice served. Regardless of the issues being questioned I think we all knew in the end he was guilty. Glad our system got it right this time......they don't always.
Thanks again to Rovin and others for the thread!
Premeditation seems easier to support, but finding atrocity/cruelty is not hard or unreasonable. He was shot 6 times, apparently twice outside the car after four times in the car. That's brutal and his last moments were in excruciating pain.theapportioner said:What does everyone think about the "extreme atrocity and cruelty" rationale for murder 1?
Harry Hooper said:
I understand and forgive nervous laughter, but it's gone on way too long here. Plus, the more they talk the more likely they'll step on a landmine and provide an angle for a mistrial/appeal.
maufman said:
I'm sorry that the jury didn't comport themselves in accordance with your personal sense of style after their 2+ months of service were completed. I doubt you'll hear the Lloyd family say a bad word about their demeanor.
smastroyin said:
- extreme atrocity or cruelty. It seems this bar is lower than the words themselves mean in everyday language. I think we tend to think of "extreme atrocity" as like crucifying the guy or burning him alive. But in this case, the fact that he was likely fearful for his life, then shot multiple times, then likely still alive as his shooter stood over him and put the final two bullets into his chest qualifies. So, it was really the best thing the state had to go murder 1 since so much of the motive evidence was hearsay and thrown out. There is direct evidence that OL's last moments alive were brutal.
Harry Hooper said:
I was listening to the audio (no video). It didn't sound good.
MarcSullivaFan said:If he thinks this is bad, just wait until Goodell hands down his discipline.
Agreed. WTF, HH? They're human.maufman said:
The video didn't look like anything besides a group of people experiencing a combination of pride in the work they had done, and relief that the ordeal was over.
- malice aforethought. I assume much of the deliberation is whether this was proven. As we know, all motive in this case is hearsay, so I can see not all members of the jury agreeing that there was malice aforethought, i.e. that AH picked up OL that night not intending to kill him.
Myt1 said:Yeah, about that:
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/82877-aaron-hernandez-eating-bugs-not-steaks/?p=5639671
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/82877-aaron-hernandez-eating-bugs-not-steaks/?p=5639796
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOOEWzVX40Y
OilCanShotTupac said:Agreed. WTF, HH? They're human.
joe dokes said:
FWIW--the "deliberation and reflection" required for "premeditation" doesn't have to be lengthy.
Harry Hooper said:
Obviously, it's more important how they actually carry out their duties than how they come across. It was just a "nails on the chalkboard" kind of thing.
smastroyin said:
Oh, I understand that. But even that seems to be circumstantial in this case right? I would argue (if I were a juror) that the multiple shots indicate a moment of premeditation (aka he could have stopped shooting the gun). But I can see it causing a lot of deliberation, I can see them not agreeing, and just moving on to atrocity.
M2 is essentially for a quasi-unintentional killing where there's something that elevates it above manslaughter - e.g., transferred intent or extreme indifference to human life, a.k.a. gross recklessness or an "abandoned and malignant heart" in the hoary language of old cases. It could also fit the situation where, say, someone overreacts to a trifling provocation by immediately shooting the person in the head, without more. Road rage type killings (intentionally running someone off the road and thereby causing death, without any time for deliberation) could also qualify. These are mostly not classic murder scenarios. I agree that most things that a layperson thinks of as murder will be M1 under MA law.maufman said:
The MA murder statute has always struck me as arbitrary. It's the rare killing that doesn't involve "extreme atrocity"; to avoid it, you almost have to take care in planning the act -- which, of course, constitutes premeditation. I'd be all in favor of eliminating the distinction between M1 and M2, having a single offense and a single punishment (mandatory life without parole), but that's a whole other discussion.
E5 Yaz said:And now, a poem from Dick Flavin ...
Rovin Romine said:IMO, Victim Impact statements are understandable in theory. I don't know about their value for the sentencing judge - do they help in any way? Do we sentence someone more harshly, if they have more (and more articulate) relatives? They're often painful to hear (in many ways). (Half the time I wish they didn't exist, or that they had to be made through an attorney.) I often wonder if people really feel the things they say, or rely on cultural tropes. For example, I have never, ever, heard a speck of self-criticism in any VIS. No matter who the victim is, they're always salt of the earth, loved by children, hard working, devoted to their parents, siblings, co-workers, a great person who will always be missed, etc. (Not suggesting we sentence more lightly for harming a disagreeable person, but really, do idealized statements about the victim help anyone in any way?)
I would like to see this happen. What a stupid bitch.Ed Hillel said:
Good, now try Shayanna for perjury.
Very true, but you happened to provide an immense amount of both. TYVM.Rovin Romine said:Thanks for all the thanks, everyone, but this thread was enjoyable and informative because of all the participation, questions, opinions, and debates on the issues. (I posted a lot, but quantity ain't always quality.)
Waiting on the Pouncey brothers tweets. ANYONE, NFL players or not who question this verdict obviously wasn't paying attention. An evil human being who deserves to isolated in a prison cell for the rest of his meaningless existence. NO redeeming value at all.NortheasternPJ said:Oh Boy. Does he ever say anything that's not stupid?
https://twitter.com/BrandonSpikes51/status/588351339945562112
Preacher said:
I think sometimes they are helpful. We do sworn testimony in sentencing so if a victim or family member wants to make a statement he/she is subject to cross examination. It also gives the defense the opportunity to counter anything the victim or family member claims in his/her statement. I have seen sexual assault victims claim during setencing that they don't want the accused to go to jail or that they weren't greatly impacted by the offense. I guess if it gives some kind of closure to the victim's family, it makes sense to allow them an opportunity to speak and feel like they impacted the process in some way.
NortheasternPJ said:Oh Boy. Does he ever say anything that's not stupid?
https://twitter.com/BrandonSpikes51/status/588351339945562112
Gee HH, give the jury the break. Just try to relax and try not to be so hard on them. The jury are just ending a period of extreme thought and deliberation. It is just a coping mechanism. They are only being human. I wonder how you would react if you were put in their position.Harry Hooper said:
Obviously, it's more important how they actually carry out their duties than how they come across. It was just a "nails on the chalkboard" kind of thing.
Average Reds said:
It's probably inevitable that he eventually explains that he was trying to be funny, because after OJ he just expected a celebrity like AH to walk no matter how guilty he was. Then he'll thank the jury for their service and slink off.
Or he'll double down and re-emphasize his idiocy. One of those two.
Average Reds said:
It's probably inevitable that he eventually explains that he was trying to be funny, because after OJ he just expected a celebrity like AH to walk no matter how guilty he was. Then he'll thank the jury for their service and slink off.
Or he'll double down and re-emphasize his idiocy. One of those two.
Rovin Romine said:
Very good points. I've never dealt with a VIS in a sexual assault case (I've only tried a handful). When the VIS is optional, I suppose it really depends on the motivation of the victims/relatives. (For example, VISs in burglaries are by and large, tedious and awful to endure. Did you know the victim felt violated? And now feels unsafe?)
I suppose I was thinking more of VIS in murders and/or mandatory sentencing cases; when I posted, I was playing the AH VISs in the background.
Reggie's Racquet said:Where will he serve his sentence?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2015/04/15/aaron-hernandez-will-serve-his-sentence-a-short-drive-from-the-patriots-stadium/
Hernandez will serve his sentence at MCI Cedar Junction, a maximum-security prison in Walpole, Mass.