Aaron Hernandez GUILTY of all Counts

[TheRef]

First degree murder carries an automatic life sentence with no possibility of parole.

[thf24]

I know it's been said ad nauseam, but what a ****ing dumbass. He had it absolutely made, but still couldn't beat the urge to needlessly go out and play a thug. I guess that's just a psychopath for you though.

[archdog]

I know it's been said ad nauseam, but what a ****ing dumbass. He had it absolutely made, but still couldn't beat the urge to needlessly go out and play a thug. I guess that's just a psychopath for you though.

I am not a lawyer, but....

I am probably in the minority here, but I am amazed they actually got a conviction on Murder 1. No murder weapon has been found, no apparent motive established, and everything seemed to be circumstantial to me.

I could see this verdict being overturned on appeal. We all "know" that this guy more than likely did it. Almost no doubt about it, but what you know and what was proven are too totally different things.
Did he own a gun matching the caliber, yes. Doesn't mean his was the gun.
Did his own security video showing him carrying the gun beyond a shadow of a doubt, pretty much but given the other angles it could be something else.
Did he call his fianc? and have her remove a box from their house? Yes, but it was never established what was in the box. We can speculate, but speculate does not equal "without a reasonable doubt". Could have been a half a pound of weed for all we know.
As far as motive, they give you past experience testimony that he was a bully and piece of crap. Doesn't mean he killed him. Even if he used extreme intimidation in the past in public against people. Doesn't mean he did it.

Everything seems very flaky to me. I would give it a 95% chance that he did it, but the prosecution could hang their hat on anything without a reasonable shadow of a doubt.

[BeardoMSU]

I am not a lawyer, but....

I am probably in the minority here, but I am amazed they actually got a conviction on Murder 1. No murder weapon has been found, no apparent motive established, and everything seemed to be circumstantial to me.

I could see this verdict being overturned on appeal. We all "know" that this guy more than likely did it. Almost no doubt about it, but what you know and what was proven are too totally different things.
Did he own a gun matching the caliber, yes. Doesn't mean his was the gun.
Did his own security video showing him carrying the gun beyond a shadow of a doubt, pretty much but given the other angles it could be something else.
Did he call his fianc? and have her remove a box from their house? Yes, but it was never established what was in the box. We can speculate, but speculate does not equal "without a reasonable doubt". Could have been a half a pound of weed for all we know.
As far as motive, they give you past experience testimony that he was a bully and piece of crap. Doesn't mean he killed him. Even if he used extreme intimidation in the past in public against people. Doesn't mean he did it.

Everything seems very flaky to me. I would give it a 95% chance that he did it, but the prosecution could hang their hat on anything without a reasonable shadow of a doubt.

I though the same thing, Arch. Even if it's 99%, that 1% is enough for acquittal; I learned that from watching "12 Angry Men", lol, a classic!

http://cdn2.thegloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/12-angry-men.png

[smootness]

I though the same thing, Arch. Even if it's 99%, that 1% is enough for acquittal; I learned that from watching "12 Angry Men", lol, a classic!

http://cdn2.thegloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/12-angry-men.png

Uh, no, that's not how reasonable doubt works.

The defense admitted he was there when Lloyd was killed, which makes the rest of the circumstantial evidence far more incriminating. There wasn't a ton of room for reasonable doubt here.

The defense threw out a 'PCP could make people do crazy things' defense without ever even having claimed that anyone there was on PCP. That's how flimsy their defense was.

[Rick Danko]

I am not a lawyer, but....

I am probably in the minority here, but I am amazed they actually got a conviction on Murder 1. No murder weapon has been found, no apparent motive established, and everything seemed to be circumstantial to me.

I could see this verdict being overturned on appeal. We all "know" that this guy more than likely did it. Almost no doubt about it, but what you know and what was proven are too totally different things.
Did he own a gun matching the caliber, yes. Doesn't mean his was the gun.
Did his own security video showing him carrying the gun beyond a shadow of a doubt, pretty much but given the other angles it could be something else.
Did he call his fianc? and have her remove a box from their house? Yes, but it was never established what was in the box. We can speculate, but speculate does not equal "without a reasonable doubt". Could have been a half a pound of weed for all we know.
As far as motive, they give you past experience testimony that he was a bully and piece of crap. Doesn't mean he killed him. Even if he used extreme intimidation in the past in public against people. Doesn't mean he did it.

Everything seems very flaky to me. I would give it a 95% chance that he did it, but the prosecution could hang their hat on anything without a reasonable shadow of a doubt.

I've thought of this forever and it makes it amazing that we get any convictions in this country, barring a straight up admission of guilt, and hell even then a lawyer can damn near convince the jury the admission was through coercion or insanity at the time. I guess what I am saying is because the system says "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" I am amazed at convictions, because with enough time you can damn near put doubt to any claim. Hell there are times I have done something one way and gone back to think about it and wondered if I did it that way or not, thus creating "reasonable doubt".

[bluelightstar]

Remember that reasonable doubt is not any doubt.

Massachusett's reasonable doubt jury instruction:

" Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, for everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. A charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you have compared and considered all of the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, that the charge is true. When we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs -- based solely on the evidence that has been put before you in this case."

[smootness]

You guys are equating 'beyond a reasonable doubt' with 'beyond a shadow of a doubt,' which isn't accurate.

A juror can have some small level of doubt (and they will in almost any case where there isn't an admission or video of the crime being committed). They're allowed doubt. The burden of proof is to a level at which a reasonable person doesn't truly doubt the guilt of the person on trial.

So it's not, 'Is there a possible answer somewhere that would explain his innocence?' It's, 'Do I truly have a reasonable level of doubt that he did this?'

As you said, basically everyone who has heard just the basics of the case believes he is guilty and doesn't truly believe any other scenario. That's all you need.

[BeardoMSU]

Uh, no, that's not how reasonable doubt works.

The defense admitted he was there when Lloyd was killed, which makes the rest of the circumstantial evidence far more incriminating. There wasn't a ton of room for reasonable doubt here.

The defense threw out a 'PCP could make people do crazy things' defense without ever even having claimed that anyone there was on PCP. That's how flimsy their defense was.

Oh, ok....that makes more sense. I guess admittance of presence was not very wise.

Ah, shit. PCP, Angle Dust, Sherman Hemsley.... I guess they decided to go with the "Rick James: Cocaine is a helluva drug" approach....bold strategy, Cotton.

[smootness]

Oh, ok....that makes more sense. I guess admittance of presence was not very wise.

Ah, shit. PCP, Angle Dust, Sherman Hemsley.... I guess they decided to go with the "Rick James: Cocaine is a helluva drug" approach....bold strategy, Cotton.

Haha yeah, pretty bizarre. If I was on a jury, the fact that they felt throwing that out there was a good option would tell me they didn't feel confident. 'Uh, aliens could have unknowingly invaded and popped a cap...Aaron would simply have been a witness to this. I'm not arguing that did happen, just that it could have happened.'

And I think they had to admit he was there. Based on security camera footage and the GPS in his rental, it was pretty obvious he was there.

[Pollodawg]

The sadness of this whole thing far outweighs the peculiarity of any minute detail in the legal parlance about "reasonable doubt."

[smootness]

The sadness of this whole thing far outweighs the peculiarity of any minute detail in the legal parlance about "reasonable doubt."

Uh, ok.

[smootness]

http://deadspin.com/jurors-say-aaron-hernandezs-defense-was-baffling-1697994540

So it looks like the defense's strategy did backfire on them. They waited until their closing argument to admit Hernandez was at the scene, which is when they came up with the weird PCP angle. Especially strange since the defense doesn't have to come up with an alternative explanation; they just have to cast enough doubt.

Again, if I was on a jury, just poking holes may work. But then once you come back and say, 'Ok, so he was there, but his friends did it after taking PCP,' when they had never before made the claim (and certainly hadn't shown any evidence supporting) anyone was on anything, I would assume he was guilty if they thought that explanation was believable.

[Pollodawg]

Uh, ok.

It's sad that he murdered someone, and it's sad that there are facets of our national pop culture that extoll the virtues of the life he embraced. Someone is dead because of this man, and that isn't sad to you? Legal argument aside?

[smootness]

It's sad that he murdered someone, and it's sad that there are facets of our national pop culture that extoll the virtues of the life he embraced. Someone is dead because of this man, and that isn't sad to you? Legal argument aside?

When did I ever say that? There was a discussion of what constitutes reasonable doubt and how he was convicted based on the evidence. That does not in any way mean this isn't extremely sad. You can have both discussions.

[Pollodawg]

When did I ever say that? There was a discussion of what constitutes reasonable doubt and how he was convicted based on the evidence. That does not in any way mean this isn't extremely sad. You can have both discussions.

I said it was it sad no matter the legal definition of "reasonable doubt," meaning that the entire situation is sad regardless of the legal intricacies involved. It was my opinion that the whole thing was far more sad than legal debate could make it. I didn't say it was wrong to debate the technical points of his conviction. Why would I have said that. I was merely stating that in my opinion, no matter the finer points of the legal arguments involved, the whole thing was sad.

You replied to me like this: "uh, ok."

I am not sure what you didn't understand.

[smootness]

Fair enough. It sounded like your first post was taking issue with the fact that we would discuss the legal case rather than the sadness of it.

[archdog]

Just put it this way. I believe he did it. But other than them admitting he was at the scene everything they had was unverified.

[Dawg61]

No chance of parole. Pretty harsh without the weapon, DNA, prints or eye witness testimony. Did the Prosecution have any of these? From what I understand they only had Hernandez narrowed down to being at the scene when it happened.

[Homedawg]

No chance of parole. Pretty harsh without the weapon, DNA, prints or eye witness testimony. Did the Prosecution have any of these? From what I understand they only had Hernandez narrowed down to being at the scene when it happened.

They had Dna evidence on the shell casings from my understanding, to go along w a mile of evidence.

[Pollodawg]

Fair enough. It sounded like your first post was taking issue with the fact that we would discuss the legal case rather than the sadness of it.

No worries.

[Dawg61]

They had Dna evidence on the shell casings from my understanding, to go along w a mile of evidence.

To me they don't have enough to justify a life sentence. For that there's got to be zero doubt. They didn't prove he killed him. That's the burden of innocent till proven guilty. They didn't prove it. 25-35 years is the max he shoulda gotten and parole hearing after 15.

[Homedawg]

To me they don't have enough to justify a life sentence. For that there's got to be zero doubt. They didn't prove he killed him. That's the burden of innocent till proven guilty. They didn't prove it. 25-35 years is the max he shoulda gotten and parole hearing after 15.

The only way you can have zero doubt in anything, without a video, is to be there. And if you are there, you are witness. Then you can't be juror.......you have a problem w REASONABLE doubt. They did more than enough to prove that. Not without a doubt. Sorry that's the way it works. The guy killed him. They convicted him. He deserved everything he got.

[dawgoneyall]

Reasonable doubt. Not beyond all doubt.

Unfortunately, reasonable people are much on the decline.

[Dawg61]

The only way you can have zero doubt in anything, without a video, is to be there. And if you are there, you are witness. Then you can't be juror.......you have a problem w REASONABLE doubt. They did more than enough to prove that. Not without a doubt. Sorry that's the way it works. The guy killed him. They convicted him. He deserved everything he got.

It's the "life without the possibility of parol" that I have issue with not the guilty conviction. Again to me they need to have some concrete firm evidence like a gun with his prints an eye witness or a confession. They don't have that so the sentence shouldn't be so extreme. He got the stiffest sentence possible besides the death penalty. Do you think there's enough evidence to warrant that sentence? Take the emotion out of it. If you were to rank this case in terms of evidence it'd be a 6-7 range not an open and closed 10 lock it throw away the key of evidence.

[smootness]

A large majority of cases are determined largely on circumstantial evidence. There simply aren't that many cases where you have undeniable proof that someone is guilty.

But everything in this case points to Hernandez being guilty. There's pretty much no evidence that supports any version other than him killing Lloyd. It's why the defense threw out a 'he was there, but they were on PCP!' defense at the last minute.

It is what it is. Our justice system isn't perfect by any means, but it's pretty good. There are just very few clean-cut cases, and yes, sometimes innocent people are jailed or put to death.

[Dawg61]

A large majority of cases are determined largely on circumstantial evidence. There simply aren't that many cases where you have undeniable proof that someone is guilty.

But everything in this case points to Hernandez being guilty. There's pretty much no evidence that supports any version other than him killing Lloyd. It's why the defense threw out a 'he was there, but they were on PCP!' defense at the last minute.

It is what it is. Our justice system isn't perfect by any means, but it's pretty good. There are just very few clean-cut cases, and yes, sometimes innocent people are jailed or put to death.

Simply put. Any first time murder conviction should only get a life without possibility of parole sentence when it has undeniable proof. Without undeniable proof we enter into a grey area and emotion and judgement become tools we use for deciding the fate of another humans life. Without undeniable proof no death sentence should ever be used. Does Massachusetts give every single 1st degree murder conviction a life sentence? You don't see a potential problem with that?

[War Machine Dawg]

Everyone is also missing that Hernandez isn't done. He's still got a trial upcoming in Boston for two murders. The guy was a hit man who enjoyed his job. He's another guy who needs to be hung publicly in a swift time frame.

[War Machine Dawg]

Reasonable doubt. Not beyond all doubt.

Unfortunately, reasonable people are much on the decline.

http://i.imgur.com/cuCPKY3.gif

http://i.imgur.com/JiC5KOU.gif

[Dawg61]

Everyone is also missing that Hernandez isn't done. He's still got a trial upcoming in Boston for two murders. The guy was a hit man who enjoyed his job. He's another guy who needs to be hung publicly in a swift time frame.

Does Massachusetts have the death penalty? He's going to be facing it if they do.

[smootness]

Simply put. Any first time murder conviction should only get a life without possibility of parole sentence when it has undeniable proof. Without undeniable proof we enter into a grey area and emotion and judgement become tools we use for deciding the fate of another humans life. Without undeniable proof no death sentence should ever be used. Does Massachusetts give every single 1st degree murder conviction a life sentence? You don't see a potential problem with that?

I have no idea what MA does, I just know what was done in this case. And the bottom line is that while we know a lot about the case, we weren't on the jury and don't have all the facts. The prosecution had over 160 witnesses. The defense had 3. The defense threw out an insane explanation for what happened as a last ditch effort which seems to indicate they didn't like their case that much.

It seems as though the jurors were all reasonably convinced, based on the evidence and testimonies presented, that Hernandez killed Lloyd. That's what our justice system is designed to do, and it generally does a pretty good job.

I don't want people who are capable of killing another human being in cold blood to walk free ever. Yes, sometimes errors are made. But that will always be the case.

[Todd4State]

Does Massachusetts have the death penalty? He's going to be facing it if they do.

I think they burn people at the stake.

[RougeDawg]

I think they burn people at the stake.

Wait, that didn't stop with the witch hunts?**

[RougeDawg]

Uh, no, that's not how reasonable doubt works.

The defense admitted he was there when Lloyd was killed, which makes the rest of the circumstantial evidence far more incriminating. There wasn't a ton of room for reasonable doubt here.

The defense threw out a 'PCP could make people do crazy things' defense without ever even having claimed that anyone there was on PCP. That's how flimsy their defense was.

Smoot, I assume you are a lawyer from your responses and agree with them all. Most people don't understand "the law" and think decisions and verdicts are set in stone. As a "law fanatic" I enjoy delving into various topics and precedents to see how I think verdicts will go. It's not a static science, which also intrigues me. Outside of slam dunk cases, Just about everything is based on a preceding ruling, which can be overturned for a plethora of reasons. Just very interesting to my Engineering mind.

[Homedawg]

Simply put. Any first time murder conviction should only get a life without possibility of parole sentence when it has undeniable proof. Without undeniable proof we enter into a grey area and emotion and judgement become tools we use for deciding the fate of another humans life. Without undeniable proof no death sentence should ever be used. Does Massachusetts give every single 1st degree murder conviction a life sentence? You don't see a potential problem with that?
Mass law is life in prison for a murder 1 conviction. There wasn't an option for reducing the sentence for murder 1. They could have gone w a murder 2 conviction and gotten less years. But the 6 shots to the head did that in.