Aaron Hernandez -- Guilty of 1st degree murder

It's not standard to avoid the stand. In some cases it makes sense. It's a judgement call on the part of the defense attorney, who then has to convince the client it's a good idea.

In the overwhelming majority of trials I prosecuted, the defendant took the stand. Sometimes the lawyer didn't want him to. But when the judge does his on-the-record inquiry into whether or not the defendant is freely and voluntarily waiving his right to testify, the defendants don't always follow the script.

 

In this guy's study, 91 percent of exonerated defendants with past criminal records did not take the stand.

He also studied a four-county sample of regular guilty findings, and 55 percent of the defendants did not take the stand.

http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1082&context=lsrp_papers

 

I have never served on a jury, but my wife did once, in the case of a man who was accused of statutory rape of his then-13-year-old niece, and they acquited him. My wife said it was a pretty easy decision. They believed he probably did it, but the girl's testimony was simply not credible. She contradicted herself and my wife thought she flat-out lied at some points. Her testimony was pretty much the core of the prosecution's case, and when that fell apart they didn't have much left to prove he did it beyond a reasonable doubt. So I really think jurors do listen to what is said in court and consider all of the evidence that is presented. It's not a perfect system, but I think it beats most any other judicial system in the world today.

 

Fixed that for ya.

You're taking a subset of defendants - those with prior records - and insinuating that the data from that sample applies to all defendants. Putting a defendant with a rap sheet on the stand has extra risks because the prosecutor may be able to impeach their testimony based on the record.

Last I checked Hernandez had no convictions before today.

 

I have no doubt that jurors try to do a good job and think they are, indeed, taking a good, comprehensive survey of the evidence.

 

I'm insinuating nothing.

I inadvertently left that phrase out.

 

Here we go. Sixty percent of defendants without criminal records testified in this study, to go with 45 percent with criminal records:

"Taking a Stand on Taking the Stand: The Effect of a Prior Criminal Rec" by Theodore Eisenberg and Valerie P. Hans

 

So your misrepresenting what the article you linked states is supposed to lead to what conclusion then? And should that misrepresentation be viewed independently from your earlier assertion that it is standard procedure for defendants to not testify?

 

Jesus Christ.

 

Did he testify?

 

One big factor in the conviction, according to jurors, was Kraft's testimony.

Aaron Hernandez trial -- Jurors say testimony of New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft compelling

"He said he was not involved," Kraft said when questioned by the prosecution, which had said Hernandez was at a bar earlier in that evening, then drove to Boston with two friends, picked up Lloyd and killed him in an industrial park. "That he was innocent and that he hoped that the time of the murder incident came out because he said he was in a club."

"The one part for me was Aaron's alleged statement that he wished the time that Odin was murdered be made public because he was at a club at that time," one juror said. "To this day, we just went through a three-month trial, this is now a year-and-a-half or two years later, and we still don't know the exact time of Odin's murder, specifically. So I don't know how Aaron would have had that information two years ago. Even today, after medical examiners' review, we still don't have that information."

 

That sounds like the end of a Columbo episode.

"Only one person would know what time the murder took place... The murderer."