Aaron Hernandez found GUILTY

[GatorJ]

Did he make all the right decisions? No," Sultan said during his closing arguments. "He was a 23-year-old kid who witnessed something, a shocking killing, committed by someone he knew. He didn't know what to do, so he just put one foot in front of the other."

I mean, he's a child. He was very scared. WHAT WAS THIS CHILD SUPPOSED TO DO!!!!???

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12636098/closing-arguments-heard-aaron-hernandez-murder-trial

 

[Gator Fever]

It wouldn't shock me if they come back with a not guilty verdict or end up in a hung jury.

 

[rogdochar]

Can arrive at that only because his prior shootings were left out even though "he wouldn't shoot his own friend" as
the main defense as anti-motive was allowed to repeatedly be purported.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

It doesn't surprise me that it wouldn't surprise you.

It does surprise me for some inexplicable reason, a defense attorney admits his client was at a murder scene for no apparent reason... not to mention telling the jury to disregard what they may have heard about his other murders in the press, as if that will help them not remember it. Hint for the next case, bub, you have the judge instruct them and then you never mention it again.

Perhaps angling for an ineffective assistance of counsel defense.

 

[t-gator]

See, I told you a holes he didn't do it. It's about time the truth came out

 

[Captain Sasquatch]

 

[gatormandan]

He is going to jail for quite a while...

 

[Swamp Donkey]

On this one, I really won't be surprised either way. You get a bunch of Boston libs on a jury and who knows what happens.

I am REALLY surprised that the whole trial got very little coverage.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

See, I told you a holes he didn't do it. It's about time the truth came out

You and Ox were all over it.

 

[Gator Fever]

The OJ case was stronger and he got off that is why I usually say it wouldn't surprise me if they aren't convicted in these cases.

 

[GatorJ]

See, I told you a holes he didn't do it. It's about time the truth came out

:D

 

[divits]

It doesn't surprise me that it wouldn't surprise you.

It does surprise me for some inexplicable reason, a defense attorney admits his client was at a murder scene for no apparent reason... not to mention telling the jury to disregard what they may have heard about his other murders in the press, as if that will help them not remember it. Hint for the next case, bub, you have the judge instruct them and then you never mention it again.

Perhaps angling for an ineffective assistance of counsel defense.

Yeah, I don't get it either. They've taken away some of the reasonable doubt by unequivocally stating that he was witness to the murder. And I didn't know they brought up other murders. Really stupid.

That said, I have lost faith in the average juror understanding the meaning of reasonable doubt. Because of that I think he's got a halfway decent chance of getting off. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[PastyStoole]

It's fairly obvious he was at the scene to everyone. It would be futile to argue otherwise. I'm not sure what a better defense would be given that. In any case, if he was able to convince Turban Liar he's innocent, he should be able to convince a jury full of Abbie Hoffman wannabes.

BTW, my sister is actually very good friends with one of his defense attorneys. They don't discuss the case obviously, but that does make me three degrees separated from this murderous psychopath.

 

[crosscreekcooter]

Wow, now theres a blast from the past.

 

[PatDooleySucks]

It doesn't surprise me that it wouldn't surprise you.

It does surprise me for some inexplicable reason, a defense attorney admits his client was at a murder scene for no apparent reason... not to mention telling the jury to disregard what they may have heard about his other murders in the press, as if that will help them not remember it. Hint for the next case, bub, you have the judge instruct them and then you never mention it again.

Perhaps angling for an ineffective assistance of counsel defense.

You would be a terrible attorney in real life. His joint with DNA is found at the scene. The Defense attorney has to explain why he's there. It was actually a brilliant move on the defense attorney's part because he argued facts not in evidence because there was no testimony that Hernandez witnessed the murder and was there. The argument was completely objectionable and could have possibly caused a mistrial. It leaves the prosecutors in a bind. They can object and get a special instruction for the jury to not consider the argument, but that only highlights the statement more.

 

[TN G8tr]

Hate that this all has happened and not sure I buy the story at all.....but.....If AH was there, wrong place, wrong time, just name the killer and where is the murder weapon is.

 

[78]

You would be a terrible attorney in real life. His joint with DNA is found at the scene. The Defense attorney has to explain why he's there. It was actually a brilliant move on the defense attorney's part because he argued facts not in evidence because there was no testimony that Hernandez witnessed the murder and was there. The argument was completely objectionable and could have possibly caused a mistrial. It leaves the prosecutors in a bind. They can object and get a special instruction for the jury to not consider the argument, but that only highlights the statement more.

Are you saying investigators found those items linking him to the murder scene? If so I'm surprised the subject wasn't more thoroughly discussed at the trial.

 

[GatorJ]

Hate that this all has happened and not sure I buy the story at all.....but.....If AH was there, wrong place, wrong time, just name the killer and where is the murder weapon is.

I think that he did finger the other 2 guys as the killers. Their trials are after his.

 

[78]

Just enough obfuscation to sway the verdict.

 

[PatDooleySucks]

[QUOTE='78;n205648]

Are you saying investigators found those items linking him to the murder scene? If so I'm surprised the subject wasn't more thoroughly discussed at the trial.[/QUOTE]

Yes. They found a blunt/joint with his saliva on it. I'm sure the prosecutors discussed that repeatedly in their closings. (if they get two closings). In some states the State doesn't get a second closing argument if the defendant doesn't testify. If that's the case in Massachusetts, then the defense attorney could make his "facts not in evidence" argument and not face any counter argument such as "then why didn't Hernandez mention this in his interviews, etc., etc., etc.,"