Aaron Hernandez found GUILTY

[78]

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.,"

That's exactly what I would question, but the strategy is obviously to float it with the jurors and let them (hopefully) feel an increasing sense of doubt.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

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.,"

I don't know if they get a second closing either. I don't remember it being mentioned but I don't thing the state did another.

Yeah, facts not in evidence is a plausible objection, one which they might prevail. It depends on the judge. Of course, the rule is clear but in my experience the criminal defendant gets a lot of leeway in this area. Even if the prosecutor objects and wins, then what? The defense attorney rephrases and says it again as a hypothetical, "what if AH was at the scene, witnessed his henchman do the murder, then got scared." So now the jury has the point emphasized and saw me appearing to want it to want it excluded.

If it's me, I don't object. When the bad guy is digging a hole, I don't take his shovel. If the jury buys that load of crap, you were never going to win anyway.

 

[PatDooleySucks]

I don't know if they get a second closing either. I don't remember it being mentioned but I don't thing the state did another.

Yeah, facts not in evidence is a plausible objection, one which they might prevail. It depends on the judge. Of course, the rule is clear but in my experience the criminal defendant gets a lot of leeway in this area. Even if the prosecutor objects and wins, then what? The defense attorney rephrases and says it again as a hypothetical, "what if AH was at the scene, witnessed his henchman do the murder, then got scared." So now the jury has the point emphasized and saw me appearing to want it to want it excluded.

If it's me, I don't object. When the bad guy is digging a hole, I don't take his shovel. If the jury buys that load of crap, you were never going to win anyway.

If you don't get a second close, then he's not really digging a hole. That's the problem. He's getting a free shot at arguing a theory of innocence that cannot be rebutted. "What ifs" are objectionable too. Even so, a good defense attorney wouldn't make those arguments and a good prosecutor would have a field day if they did (but that's if the prosecution gets that second, critical close). That's why I think it could be a rather ingenious move on the DAT's part.

 

[WobbleGator]

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

Yep. AH won't be found guilty.

 

[crosscreekcooter]

Doesn't the home video of him displaying his Glock minutes before and upon his return from the murder make it more difficult to argue he was just a frightened witness?

 

[WobbleGator]

Doesn't the home video of him displaying his Glock minutes before and upon his return from the murder make it more difficult to argue he was just a frightened witness?

Just cause you have a gun in your hand, doesn't mean you aren't scared.

 

[crosscreekcooter]

What it does mean is there is a much greater chance that you were the triggerman rather than just a "witness".

 

[WobbleGator]

What it does mean is there is a much greater chance that you were the triggerman rather than just a "witness".

Maybe, but not enough to prove you are guilty.

 

[crosscreekcooter]

All 3 of these turds are guilty of murder.

 

[WobbleGator]

All 3 of these turds are guilty of murder.

They probably are but I don't think the prosecutor has done enough to prove AH is guilty.

 

[crosscreekcooter]

He called the late night meeting, he took his handgun, he drove the crew out to the killing field, he was there, what else you need?

 

[WobbleGator]

He called the late night meeting, he took his handgun, he drove the crew out to the killing field, he was there, what else you need?

The actual gun? A witness to the shooting? Nothing shows that AH pulled the trigger or planned for the killing to happen.

 

[LagoonGator68]

It only takes one to hang the jury.

 

[oxrageous]

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I fully expect a guilty verdict here. Life with no parole. Then he has to go to trial on the other murders, although that would seem like a waste of time and money at that point.

 

[PatDooleySucks]

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I fully expect a guilty verdict here. Life with no parole. Then he has to go to trial on the other murders, although that would seem like a waste of time and money at that point.

Sometimes it's a "pound of flesh" issue. It's hard to tell families of slain people that their decedent's trial is a "waste of time and money."

Other times there are more important reasons. 1). There could be appellate issues in the Massachusetts trial. It could come back and come back in a way that the prosecutors have less ammo. 2). States can be weary of other states' fluctuating laws. Life without parole now doesn't mean life without parole in 10-20-30-40 years. Laws change. If the second state feels the guy doesn't deserve to see the light of day again, they may not want to gamble with Massachusetts delivering that punishment. 3). Lastly they may file the case just to get an admission and a plea that replicates or is even less severe than the original state's sentence. This is to have closure, expedite a result, and to have him under sentence in case something falls through with the original trial.

 

[GatorJ]

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I fully expect a guilty verdict here. Life with no parole. Then he has to go to trial on the other murders, although that would seem like a waste of time and money at that point.

Yep. He's going to jail. And for a long time.

 

[crosscreekcooter]

Speaking of time and money, I wonder how much Hernandez is spending on his defense, and can the state go after what's left of his estate in an effort to cover the expense of his prosecution?

 

[LagoonGator68]

Kraft was trying to claw back a bunch of bonus a while back.

 

[Gator Fever]

I watched the CNN special on this last night and the defense lawyer did poke some big holes in the case with the prosecution witnesses but the circumstantial evidence seemed really strong.

 

[Gator Fever]

Doesn't the home video of him displaying his Glock minutes before and upon his return from the murder make it more difficult to argue he was just a frightened witness?

I think his lawyer got one of the state's witnesses to say that could have been an I phone or something like that when shown at another angle on one of the videos at least.