Aaron Hernandez -- Guilty of 1st degree murder

Based on the reports coming during the trial, it looked to me like Hernandez had to confront a great deal of circumstantial evidence that painted a picture that he was at the very minimum the ringleader of the gang that killed Lloyd. Under Mass law as I saw reported, it was irrelevant whether he pulled the trigger or not.

In many cases, eyewitnesses lead to a weaker case than circumstantial evidence because they can be made out to be confused after the fact, whereas circumstantial evidence, cell phone records, videotape, DNA, etc. does not lie.

I was a bit worried about the duration of deliberations initially but when I thought it through, I believe the delay was because the jurors took their time to go through all the evidence to given Hernandez every opportunity to defend himself and make sure they got it right. I truly believe that jurors take their service very seriously, especially when they hold someone's life in their hands. In my experience, even when the jury does not decide how I think they should have, they still took their time and really tried to sort through the evidence. Jurors do not get the credit they deserve.

 

This is where we diverge.

I think the jury system is fucked.

One innocent person after another locked away.

I guess they try.

I guess.

It's not even their fault, really. Trials are a big lawyering contest. The adversarial system isn't about figuring out the truth. It's chess.

 

What Ineffective Assistance of Counsel claims will Hernandez make? I assume not testifying will be one.

 

IAC?

 

That's Cleveland.

 

Fixed.

 

Isn't the standard defense tactic not to testify, that, generally, getting on the stand is a really bad idea?

 

Especially if you are guilty.

 

Yes, which is why he'll probably lose. But he'll still challenge the decision.

 

Don't get me wrong, I know that the jury system favors those with more $$, that sucks for the poor and indigent innocent, they get convicted with poor counsel.

But the alternatives, as shown historically and what we see in other countries, are worse.

 

Not necessarily. I've examined cases in which it turned out to be pretty clear that the person was more likely innocent, and they didn't testify. Why? Because, again, it's not a real trial. It's a chess match between lawyers. Typically, even innocent guys who would be brought up on a murder charge aren't going to present particularly well to the jury.

 

In Law & Order and 48 Hours we trust. I KNEW tee-vee wouldn't steer me wrong.