Aaron Hernandez: eating bugs not steaks
- Thread starter Rico Guapo
- Start date
- Status
Seriously? All I need is for him to beat the charge against Lloyd?Average Reds said:
Since you'll be covering the charity I'll begin looking for other uses for my $50.
http://www.ruthschris.com/menu/steak/
Urban and Shelly Meyer on Hernandez.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_ZLDxUKw74&list=UUWPQB43yGKEum3eW0P9N_nQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_ZLDxUKw74&list=UUWPQB43yGKEum3eW0P9N_nQ
Might as well bump the thread on the Patriots murderer after the last few days: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/09/30/judge-hear-aaron-hernandez-bid-suppress-evidence/B14VcZEvr3kzgiPmeNMwZP/story.html
From what I had heard, the prosecution indicated earlier that it would not contest the motion. To answer your question, I am not sure. This is far from all the evidence they have, but they don't have the murder weapon.OilCanShotTupac said:
This is the second exclusion motion granted, I think, the first for a deficient warrant, now this.
It's not good work. They knew their guy, but they also knew they didn't have him cold. And, he was not going anywhere.
Question for the legalites here. I'm convinced that as it stands today Hernandez is never being convicted in the Lloyd murder and the only chance they have with a murder charge is with the older one in Florida(?).
He's been in a jail cell for well over a year now......doesn't he have a right to a "speedy trial" or have I watched to many episodes of Law & Order?
He's been in a jail cell for well over a year now......doesn't he have a right to a "speedy trial" or have I watched to many episodes of Law & Order?
HomeRunBaker said:
Speedy trial is pretty nebulous. Barker v. Wingo outlined a whole bunch of balancing criteria to consider when determining if the right had been violated (and, in particular, in that case 5 years between arrest and trial was deemed not to have violated it). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barker_v._Wingo
I'm not a lawyer, but Hernandez was indicted in May of this year. I think that's one of the critical moments in tolling speedy trial rights, and means he's only 5 months in to that period at the moment (which seems odd given the earlier arrest, but I think that after arrest there's some allowed time until probable cause hearing or indictment, and then there's a new time between indictment and trial, and none of those are bright-line periods of time--they depend on the various tests in Barker v Wingo). There was also at least one continuance granted to the prosecution in 2013.
Hopefully a lawyer can chime in with common timeframes in MA.
(For comparison: Phil Spector was arrested in 2003; his first trial began in 2007 and was a mistrial. The second trial began in 2009 and he was convicted. No speedy trial problems interfered with that verdict. So in some circumstances you can have pretty lengthy periods of elapsed time without violating the right--in particular, if the defense ever files for a continuance or doesn't object to such by the prosecution then it hurts a later argument that they wanted a speedy trial).
Did you forget about the double murder he us charged with in the south end. That case is just about a lock to convict him as the evidence is daunting.HomeRunBaker said:
jsinger121 said:
IANAL, but some of the evidence from the second case were found because of stuff found in the first investigation. And with the prosecution having issues with warrants in the first case, it is possible that evidence from the second will end up excluded because the gummint fucked up.
And I would disagree with "lock" and "daunting". The second case is stronger, for sure, but this is a long way from a sure-fire, lead-pipe lock.
That's the one I was referring to.....why I had Florida on my brain is beyond me.jsinger121 said:
While there is a much greater chance of the South Boston conviction I'd hardly call any conviction in a public figure clusterfvck a lock.
If you read back far enough in this thread R Romine talks about why AH is likely to go down for the Lloyd murder. He doesn't even need to be the proven shooter- just present and part of the effort (unsure of legal term) that got Lloyd killed. Never know what a jury will do, I suppose, but the known evidence looks pretty bad for AH.
Seems bad that his defense lawyer is criticizing his early Ropes lawyer (Fee) that handled the investigation - in the recent court filings the prosecution is throwing Fee's words back at the defense. That's not good, right?
Can any lawyers speak as to why the prosecuter was called to the stand and what that means for the case?
Finally - the white shoe lawyer's name is "Fee". Gotta laugh a bit at that one.
Seems bad that his defense lawyer is criticizing his early Ropes lawyer (Fee) that handled the investigation - in the recent court filings the prosecution is throwing Fee's words back at the defense. That's not good, right?
Can any lawyers speak as to why the prosecuter was called to the stand and what that means for the case?
Finally - the white shoe lawyer's name is "Fee". Gotta laugh a bit at that one.
I read it and respect the posters opinion......I simply disagree that it is as cut and dry as he made it sound. Proving that Aaron was present, no weapon, having all of the circumstantial evidence allowed, ability to gather an impartial jury and then having every single one of them agree that circumstantial evidence fulfills the burden of proof requirement. We all have opinions and I don't see it ever happening with what we know today. It would take a perfect storm.crystalline said:
HomeRunBaker said:
Most convictions involve circumstantial evidence. We're not in the panopticon quite yet. The prosecution is going to put AH texting with the victim, in the car with the victim, returning to the house, including the video evidence of him leaving the house with a gun. There won't be a reasonable doubt about AH's involvement. The defense might work it down to 2nd degree, but based on the evidence we know at this point, he's going down.
Again, you are assuming the perfect storm to have any chance of this. You're assuming in this case that the texts will be allowed. They just spent an entire afternoon in court arguing this.....if it was cut and dry the judge would have ruled so rather than pushing the decision to suppress to January.epraz said:
Without the texts the prosecution is done, with the texts they have to get past the other barriers of their production without any setbacks but at least they'll have a chance greater than Lloyd Christmas.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA
Didn't see this posted elsewhere and seems pretty big? I'm sure the bevy of lawyers on here can shed some light:
AP: Belichick, Kraft may testify in Hernandez trial
AP: Belichick, Kraft may testify in Hernandez trial
Twitter indicating the judge in the case is deeming several pieces of evidence as inadmissable.
sorry if it's been answered but -- anyone know when the trial is slated to begin and whether or not it'll be televised / streamed?
"and will not hear of Hernandez’ alleged shooting of Alexander Bradley four months prior to Lloyd’s death."
Did I really miss reports that this guy shot someone in between the 2012 intersection double murder and Odin Lloyd?
Did I really miss reports that this guy shot someone in between the 2012 intersection double murder and Odin Lloyd?
Jungleland said:
That was the guy (still alive) who said he was shot in the face by AH down in Florida.
That's still a fairly inconsequential piece of the evidence, no? They have him pretty dead to rights on being at the scene...right?
Defense lawyers called it "rank speculation" that the texts indicated fear and said they were inadmissible.
Why didn't they let the jury decide?
Why didn't they let the jury decide?
If it is conceded that Lloyd and Hernandez were together at the time of the text messages, the prosecution would not need to use these to prove it. More than that, if the prosecution proposes to use the texts to prove Lloyd's state of mind, I think that Hernandez would be deprived of his sixth amendment right to confront Lloyd as a witness on that question.FelixMantilla said:
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
mandro ramtinez said:
That seems like a perverse use of the right to confront, doesn't it, being that Lloyd is unavailable allegedly due to the actions of the accused. How could anyone ever enter evidence of the state of mind of a murder victim, then, since the same argument could always be used? "Your honor, I realize the victim wrote 'holy shit, mandro's going to fucking kill me' in blood on the mirror, but since we can't confront the accuser, it would be unfairly prejudicial to enter that as evidence"
I assume there's a good answer to that, it just seems weird to me.
According to this article from the Herald, the trial is set to start on January 5.PseuFighter said:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2014/12/judge_nixes_texts_sent_by_alleged_aaron_hernandez_victim
IANAL, but I did stay at a holiday inn express last night. I think the defense's point is precisely that the txt was "I'm with NFL. Just so you know" and not "holy shit I'm with NFL and I think he's going to kill me" it's not enough to show he was in fear. Or something like that.MentalDisabldLst said:
MentalDisabldLst said:
[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]If the testimony were admitted and Hernandez were convicted, Hernandez would not be able to claim a denial of his right to cross-examine Lloyd as a witness because the witness was made unavailable by the wrongdoing of Hernandez's own actions (i.e. forfeiture of wrongdoing exception), per Giles v. California.[/SIZE]
MentalDisabldLst said:
Still, given that it appears the prosecution has ample evidence to show that Hernandez and Lloyd were together at the time of the text messages and that the exception discussed in the Giles case has been construed narrowly, I think the judge was probably right to exclude the text messages since using them to prove Lloyd's state of mind could be seen as prejudicial.There is no Rev said:
I'm guessing the prosecution was attempting to introduce the texts under an excited utterance/present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule (just guessing without knowing context of the texts). If it is impossible to establish Lloyd's state of mind (i.e. that they were sent in a state of fear) or how close in time the texts were sent in conjunction with the startling event, they would not be admissible under a hearsay exception.FelixMantilla said:
The article is a bit strident - I'm not sure any of these are "heavy blows" to the prosecution's case.
This is a law case - the issues are relatively narrow. Juries never get to see (nor should they get to see) the whole confused mess of the defendant's life, including stuff that's sort of randomly suggestive of guilt or of innocence.
If the prosecution really needs to introduce the texts to show that AH and Lloyd were together that night, the prosecution was going to fail anyway. Instead they have the reams of other evidence discussed somewhere upthread.
This is a law case - the issues are relatively narrow. Juries never get to see (nor should they get to see) the whole confused mess of the defendant's life, including stuff that's sort of randomly suggestive of guilt or of innocence.
If the prosecution really needs to introduce the texts to show that AH and Lloyd were together that night, the prosecution was going to fail anyway. Instead they have the reams of other evidence discussed somewhere upthread.
I think Giles is a bit narrower, as in the motive for the murder or action that prevents the declarant's availability is to prevent him from testifying at trial.There is no Rev said:
We're sort of skipping steps in the analysis in this latest bunch of posts for the less legally inclined. I typically leave trials to the people who do it, but let me try to break it down.
Generally speaking, an out of court statement that is offered for the truth of what it asserts is hearsay. That is, if Rev tells me that he saw Cain kill Abel, and the prosecution wants to call me to testify that he said so as evidence that Cain did in fact kill Abel, that statement would be hearsay and would likely be excluded from the trial.
Now, there are about a billion ways to get around hearsay. The first bunch is by challenging the hearsay designation itself. That is, the prosecution can offer an out of court statement for reasons other than proving that the statement itself is actually true.
Example: Seth is on trial for killing Cain. The prosecution wants to call Adam to testify that Eve told Seth that Cain killed Abel (Seth's brother) to show Seth's motive for killing Cain. This would not be hearsay, because the prosecution isn't offering Adam's testimony of Eve's hearsay statement to prove that Cain did, in fact, kill Abel. The statement is not being offered for the truth of what it asserts. It's being offered as evidence of motive. Even if Cain had not killed Abel, if Eve told Seth that he did and Seth thought he did, he would have a motive to kill Cain.
There are other things that are not hearsay, like admissions by party opponents, e.g. an admission by the defendant himself.
And there are things that are hearsay, but are admissible under some sort of exception to the general rule that hearsay is not admissible. Giles forfeiture is an exception to the hearsay rule. Others include things that have some sort of indicia of reliability, like "Excited utterances" or statements against interest.
The one that Lloyd's statements could come in under is a statement of present state of mind. "I'm afraid that Aaron Hernandez is going to kill me," would likely be admissible. "I'm with Aaron Hernandez," would not be.
This wiki page is pretty good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law
This sounds as if all hearsay from a murder victim is in practice admissible against the accused murderer.There is no Rev said:
If the accused is acquitted then no one is going to pursue getting the hearsay thrown out.
If the accused is convicted the hearsay becomes legally acceptable.
So why is this an issue?
(I'm just spelling out the tautology mentioned above)
Rovin Romine said:
People have been watching too many courtroom drama on television and so there's a tendency to assume that every pre-trial ruling is a "devastating blow" to one side or the other.
Based on what we know (which most certainly is not the entirety of the case) Hernandez is still almost certain to be convicted.
There is no Rev said:
epraz said:
crystalline said:
My comment was a flip response to there is no rev's description of Giles, which I hadn't read. Hearsay evidence is always less than ideal because of the lack of the ability for the defendant to confront the speaker; if the hearsay was part of the evidence used to convict Hernandez and the conviction was the proof that Hernandez was guilty, it would be like saying that a guilty person had less of a right to the rules of evidence than an innocent person.
Anyway, Myt1 cleared up my misunderstanding. In Giles, the defendant ostensibly killed his girlfriend to keep her from testifying, and the Supreme Court explicitly held that his intent was central to the determination of whether the exception applied.
- Status