Aaron Hernandez -- Guilty of 1st degree murder

Fuckin' awesome.

 

I also saw — I forget where, and I'm too lazy to look it up — that the jury members were baffled that the defense admitted in closing arguments that Hernandez was at the scene. To that point, they hadn't conclusively known he was at the scene of the crime. Once the defense placed him at the scene, they found the rest of the story unbelievable.

The article also noted that it was odd the defense provided a narrative — that the other men were high on PCP and killed Lloyd in front of a shocked - SHOCKED - Aaron Hernandez. Typically, defense lawyers simply try to poke holes in whatever narrative is presented by the prosecution to provide reasonable doubt, rather than providing their own narrative that can be disproven.

 

If Hernandez testified, the jury would have taken five minutes instead of five days. It no longer becomes about satisfying the burden of proof, but about whether he is telling the truth. And because he almost certainly did it, that was a risk no decent lawyer would take.

 

It's hard to know how well he would've done on the stand and whether or not he would've connected with the jury. Certainly his attorneys have a better sense of that than any message board commentators.

His declining to testify will not serve as a successful ineffective assistance of counsel appeal, as others have suggested it might. I'm presuming that Massachusetts does like the other states I've worked in (Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina) and requires defendants to state on the record that they understand they are knowingly and willfully waiving their right to testify.

The biggest risk in putting him on the stand is that he might unintentionally open the door for evidence of the pending double-homicide charges to come in front of the jury. Otherwise, the risk for someone without a criminal record is relatively low - unless the attorney has a good sense that the jury won't like them.

 

There is a reason why prosecutors can't cross examine worth a damn -- most defendants are guilty and don't want to testify.

If he had anything to say that would have helped his case, he would have been on the stand. The fact of the matter is that he almost certainly did it and was relying on good lawyers to show reasonable doubt as to the burden of proof.

 

I'd strongly disagree that most prosecutors can't cross examine worth a damn. More than once I had a case saved by a defendant choosing to testify and the chance to cross examine him made the difference. And more than once I was able to get a defendant to admit to key elements of a crime, let alone damning facts. I also have far more experience conducting a cross than the majority of defense attorneys who've been practicing as long as I have.

There are good reasons his attorneys withheld him from the stand. His body language throughout the trial was somewhere between cold and disinterested. Presumably that would've carried over to the witness box. There was also the legitimate possibility that would inadvertently open the door for the other homicides to come in. Lastly, for all we know he admitted guilt to his attorneys, which severely limits their ability to do a direct examination.

 

What I actually wrote was, "He'll probably lose."

 

Has anyone seen whether any publications have published the trial transcripts in their entirety?

 

Dick,

I suspect the jury system works perfectly fine for the types of defendants lawmakers had in mind when they developed the system. That is, defendants whom the jury views as part of its peer group. That is, defendants whom the jury believes are not predisposed to criminal behavior. That is, defendants who are members of a stable economic strata. This particular jury gave Hernandez every benefit of the doubt to prove his innocence because it is human nature to believe it would require an extraordinary person or circumstance to risk all that he had going for him in order to commit a crime, and it is human nature to feel an elevated level of gravity when deciding whether to convict him and thus strip him of all that he had going for him. Problem is, it is also human nature to believe, even if subconsciously, that people of lesser means are more predisposed to criminality. Their lack of means is itself a motive for infringing on another's liberty/property. Dog eat dog and all. I'm struck by the percentage of the wrongfully convicted who had prior criminal records, but it makes sense when you think about it: it would be human nature for a jury member to think, even subconciously, "Well, I'm pretty sure he did it, but even if he didn't it, the world is probably a better place if he is off the street, given his track record."

I'm not sure how you take any of that out of the system.

 

Well, Hernandez wasn't required to "prove his innocence." But you're right. I'm sure that's how the jury processed it.

The reason that the wrongfully convicted have prior records isn't just because the jury believes what you say they likely believe, although that's part of it. It's also because police are more likely to tab some no-good that they know from their beat as the likely culprit.

These gun convictions drive me a little crazy. I really want to read the trial transcript and see why there was no reasonable doubt that Hernandez either pulled the trigger or otherwise participated to the degree that warranted life without parole.

 

I should have said, "Suggest his innocence once they had decided he was probably guilty." I assume the way most juries work is that once a verdict is reached or close to reached, they will double-check themselves and look for any possible way that the evidence might suggest something other than guilt. At least, it sounds like that was the case in the Hernandez trial, as it should be. I would guess that in most wrongful convictions, the jury does not afford the defendant that exhaustive effort to find reasonable doubt.

I agree with you that the system has some serious flaws on the prosecution end of things, particularly in cases when nobody is watching and everybody assumes that, even if the defendant didn't commit this particular crime, society is probably better off with him off the streets.

I just don't think this is one of those cases. In fact, in a highly visible case -- Casey Anthony, O.J. Simpson, George Zimmerman, Ferguson, Richard Durst -- I'm not sure there is much evidence at all of the scales being tilted against the accused.a

Long story short, it is human nature for a jury member to listen to an opening argument and think, "Black guy, criminal record, no job, yeah, seems like the type that would execute a guy in an industrial park." And it is human nature of a jury member to listen to an opening argument and think, "NFL star, millionaire, fiance and newborn, everything to lose...the prosecution better have some damn good evidence that he risked it all to kill somebody."

 

What I want to try to figure out is why the jury didn't think a Ray Lewis-type situation was possible, where Hernandez obstructed justice after someone else shot and killed the guy. On the surface, at least, that seems plausible to me. The fact that others appear to be dismissing it, including the jury, alerts me that I probably have some important gaps in my knowledge of the case against Hernandez.

The one thing that has always bothered me about this case is that BPD should have had Hernandez dead to rights in the prior double homicide long before they did. If I remember the sequence of events correctly, they had a pretty precise description of the vehicle that the shots were fired from, and examined surveillance footage of the parking garage at the club. Hernandez's car was on that footage. That's how they eventually got him. I think the video even may have shown him getting into the car. Whatever it was, it seemed pretty clear to me that BPD officers watched it, had every indication that Hernandez was the guy, and decided, "Nahhhh ... that guy's a Pat!"

A few months later, Odin Lloyd is shot dead.