Hernandez convicted of first-degree murder; found deceased in his cell. (1 Viewer)

[Mystery Achiever]

Thx for the explanation on the texts, Maurile.

 

[BigJim®]

I can see the argument to exclude other incidents, but what would be rationale for excluding the texts?

probably that the texts don't specifically reference Hernandez. Common sense is that they refer to him, but probably too vague to admit as evidence.

I'm not a fan of a legal system that would disregard this fact. These texts are factual communication by the victim, immediately before his murder. Not only that, but a "...just so you know" communication. It seems totally irrational to exclude this as evidence. For my money, it is the defense's job to explain why this evidence should be disregarded. Unless evidence was gathered illegally, a jury should be allowed to consider all evidence, and accept or reject as they see fit.

 

[General Tso]

I can see the argument to exclude other incidents, but what would be rationale for excluding the texts?

probably that the texts don't specifically reference Hernandez. Common sense is that they refer to him, but probably too vague to admit as evidence.

Shouldn't they let the jury decide if they are too vague? How many non-NFL players are referred to as "NFL"?

 

[General Tso]

I can see the argument to exclude other incidents, but what would be rationale for excluding the texts?

probably that the texts don't specifically reference Hernandez. Common sense is that they refer to him, but probably too vague to admit as evidence.

Why? Was the victim know to hang out with other NFLers? Seems like it would be pretty easy to connect him.

Even if the texts said "I'm with Aaron Hernandez," they would not be admissible for the purpose of showing that Lloyd was with Aaron Hernandez. After all, Lloyd could have been lying or mistaken, and he's not available for cross-examination on the subject.

The texts would be admissible in most states, but Massachusetts is a real stickler about hearsay.

Good explanation here.

Our criminal justice system sucks. Sorry. I know all the lawyers in here love to tout it as the best in the world, but it isn't. If they can't use the last text message of a man who is sending the text because he feels like his life is in danger... FAIL.

 

[unckeyherb]

I can see the argument to exclude other incidents, but what would be rationale for excluding the texts?

probably that the texts don't specifically reference Hernandez. Common sense is that they refer to him, but probably too vague to admit as evidence.

Shouldn't they let the jury decide if they are too vague? How many non-NFL players are referred to as "NFL"?

Yeah probably. I'm not a lawyer so I'm just throwing out a guess. I think it's ridiculous, but it is what it is.

 

[General Tso]

I can see the argument to exclude other incidents, but what would be rationale for excluding the texts?

probably that the texts don't specifically reference Hernandez. Common sense is that they refer to him, but probably too vague to admit as evidence.

Shouldn't they let the jury decide if they are too vague? How many non-NFL players are referred to as "NFL"?

Yeah probably. I'm not a lawyer so I'm just throwing out a guess. I think it's ridiculous, but it is what it is.

Mark my words, this POS is gonna walk. Meanwhile our prisons are filled up with non-violent drug users. This country is sooooo fukced up.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

I can see the argument to exclude other incidents, but what would be rationale for excluding the texts?

probably that the texts don't specifically reference Hernandez. Common sense is that they refer to him, but probably too vague to admit as evidence.

Shouldn't they let the jury decide if they are too vague? How many non-NFL players are referred to as "NFL"?

Yeah probably. I'm not a lawyer so I'm just throwing out a guess. I think it's ridiculous, but it is what it is.

Mark my words, this POS is gonna walk. Meanwhile our prisons are filled up with non-violent drug users. This country is sooooo fukced up.

yup. At the end of the day, if you have money, your lawyers will be better than the prosecutor. so prosecution better have a hell of a case.

 

[Das Boot]

I can see the argument to exclude other incidents, but what would be rationale for excluding the texts?

probably that the texts don't specifically reference Hernandez. Common sense is that they refer to him, but probably too vague to admit as evidence.

Shouldn't they let the jury decide if they are too vague? How many non-NFL players are referred to as "NFL"?

I thought NFL stood for Not For Long.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I can see the argument to exclude other incidents, but what would be rationale for excluding the texts?

probably that the texts don't specifically reference Hernandez. Common sense is that they refer to him, but probably too vague to admit as evidence.

Why? Was the victim know to hang out with other NFLers? Seems like it would be pretty easy to connect him.

Even if the texts said "I'm with Aaron Hernandez," they would not be admissible for the purpose of showing that Lloyd was with Aaron Hernandez. After all, Lloyd could have been lying or mistaken, and he's not available for cross-examination on the subject.

The texts would be admissible in most states, but Massachusetts is a real stickler about hearsay.

Good explanation here.

Awful, that's for the fact finder to decide. That is the judge sticking his nose in the jury's business. Unjust decision plain and simple.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I can see the argument to exclude other incidents, but what would be rationale for excluding the texts?

probably that the texts don't specifically reference Hernandez. Common sense is that they refer to him, but probably too vague to admit as evidence.

Why? Was the victim know to hang out with other NFLers? Seems like it would be pretty easy to connect him.

Even if the texts said "I'm with Aaron Hernandez," they would not be admissible for the purpose of showing that Lloyd was with Aaron Hernandez. After all, Lloyd could have been lying or mistaken, and he's not available for cross-examination on the subject.

The texts would be admissible in most states, but Massachusetts is a real stickler about hearsay.

Good explanation here.

Awful, that's for the fact finder to decide. That is the judge sticking his nose in the jury's business. Unjust decision plain and simple.

Says the guy who doesn't like it when Judge Goodell makes up the rules as he goes along.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Right, Goodell acts without rules, here the judge may have followed the MA rule but the result is still unjust.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Awful, that's for the fact finder to decide.

The theory is that the jury can't effectively decide whether Lloyd was telling the truth, because they can't observe his facial expressions, vocal cadence, blink rate, etc., when he is asked about those texts -- on account of his being dead.

Yeah, it's probably kind of stupid, but it's the law. The law is an ###.

That is the judge sticking his nose in the jury's business. Unjust decision plain and simple.

You might mean the legislature rather than the judge. If the judge goes against the law and allows the texts into evidence, any conviction may be overturned on appeal because of it. The judge doesn't have discretion to nullify state rules of evidence based on such trifling concerns as justice.

 

[Faust]

Aaron Hernandez's murder trial could begin Tuesday

 

[Anarchy99]

The NFL should ask Hernandez what he knows about the Pats taking the air out of the football. If anyone would talk, it would be AH.

 

[Bri]

Aaron Hernandez's murder trial could begin Tuesday

Wonder if the glove will fit

 

[JetMaxx]

Aaron Hernandez's murder trial could begin Tuesday

Wonder if the glove will fit

will the bubbalicious be vicious?

 

[Deamon]

Only a couple hundred more posts in the deflate-gate thread and it will have caught up to this.

Imagine that... slightly deflated balls (with zero proof how), will have out-talked a murder (with lots of proof.)

 

[Freelove]

Only a couple hundred more posts in the deflate-gate thread and it will have caught up to this.

Imagine that... slightly deflated balls (with zero proof how), will have out-talked a murder (with lots of proof.)

Well, this is the NFL forum, and this thread probably should have been off-topic.

 

[msommer]

Only a couple hundred more posts in the deflate-gate thread and it will have caught up to this.

Imagine that... slightly deflated balls (with zero proof how), will have out-talked a murder (with lots of proof.)

I believe there are close to two thousand posts on the Hernandez case in the FFA. Deflategate, not so much

 

[Deamon]

Only a couple hundred more posts in the deflate-gate thread and it will have caught up to this.

Imagine that... slightly deflated balls (with zero proof how), will have out-talked a murder (with lots of proof.)

I believe there are close to two thousand posts on the Hernandez case in the FFA. Deflategate, not so much

3,456 posts to deflate gate in the shark pool.

 

[msommer]

Only a couple hundred more posts in the deflate-gate thread and it will have caught up to this.

Imagine that... slightly deflated balls (with zero proof how), will have out-talked a murder (with lots of proof.)

I believe there are close to two thousand posts on the Hernandez case in the FFA. Deflategate, not so much

3,456 posts to deflate gate in the shark pool.

and 5350 posts on Hernandez.

Problem is that nothing brings the trolls out more than the patriots accused of cheating.

And that no one is taking Hernandez side

If he's acquitted, watch this thread explode

 

[Vector]

Msommer,

Can your homer mind consider that maybe they're not trolls just NFL fans tired of the seemingly endless occasions of NE bending and breaking the rules?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Only a couple hundred more posts in the deflate-gate thread and it will have caught up to this.

Imagine that... slightly deflated balls (with zero proof how), will have out-talked a murder (with lots of proof.)

Well, this is the NFL forum, and this thread probably should have been off-topic.

As soon as Hernandez has a prolific NBA career, this thread will be moved.

 

[msommer]

Msommer,

Can your homer mind consider that maybe they're not trolls just NFL fans tired of the seemingly endless occasions of NE bending and breaking the rules?

Vector. You seem to be making assumptions about me.

 

[JayJay328]

Here's the thing about a text message from the phone of a dead man. How do you know the deceased sent the text?

 

[Anarchy99]

Here's the thing about a text message from the phone of a dead man. How do you know the deceased sent the text?

Some of the texts have already been ruled inadmissible.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here's the thing about a text message from the phone of a dead man. How do you know the deceased sent the text?

There's very good evidence that they were sent from his phone. As for whether he was actually the one who composed and sent them -- instead of, say, Aaron Hernandez after having grabbed the phone from him -- we can't know anything for sure, but that seems like the only reasonable possibility. I don't think a question about who sent the texts would bar them from being admitted into evidence.

What bars them from being admitted into evidence is that the dead man did send them, and he can no longer be cross-examined about them (what with being dead and all), so Massachusetts law deems the texts to be inadmissible hearsay.

 

[Anarchy99]

From what I remember, texts were excluded because they did not reference AH by name. Only referred to "Mr. NFL."

 

[PatsWillWin]

What bars them from being admitted into evidence is that the dead man did send them, and he can no longer be cross-examined about them (what with being dead and all), so Massachusetts law deems the texts to be inadmissible hearsay.

That's what I love about MA. If one of your crew texts someone about something that you did, you can just kill them. Boom, inadmissible.

 

[Jello_Biafra]

Here's the thing about a text message from the phone of a dead man. How do you know the deceased sent the text?

There's very good evidence that they were sent from his phone. As for whether he was actually the one who composed and sent them -- instead of, say, Aaron Hernandez after having grabbed the phone from him -- we can't know anything for sure, but that seems like the only reasonable possibility. I don't think a question about who sent the texts would bar them from being admitted into evidence.

What bars them from being admitted into evidence is that the dead man did send them, and he can no longer be cross-examined about them (what with being dead and all), so Massachusetts law deems the texts to be inadmissible hearsay.

That's ridiculous. What about the person receiving the texts? Why can't they be cross examined and have the texts admissible.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here's the thing about a text message from the phone of a dead man. How do you know the deceased sent the text?

There's very good evidence that they were sent from his phone. As for whether he was actually the one who composed and sent them -- instead of, say, Aaron Hernandez after having grabbed the phone from him -- we can't know anything for sure, but that seems like the only reasonable possibility. I don't think a question about who sent the texts would bar them from being admitted into evidence.

What bars them from being admitted into evidence is that the dead man did send them, and he can no longer be cross-examined about them (what with being dead and all), so Massachusetts law deems the texts to be inadmissible hearsay.

That's ridiculous. What about the person receiving the texts? Why can't they be cross examined and have the texts admissible.

The idea is that when somebody says something, the jury should have the chance to evaluate whether he's lying or telling the truth by observing the sweat dripping down his forehead, his nervous tics, his tendency to gulp between words, etc. So whatever the guy said outside the courtroom, we're going to make him say it again in front of the jury and subject him to cross-examination about it. We can't do that with a dead guy, so there's no way for the jury to evaluate his truthfulness, and his out-of-court statements are therefore inadmissible.

Cross-examining the recipient of the texts would not really help the jurors determine for themselves whether the sender looked and sounded like he was telling the truth. Maybe he was lying about being with "NFL." Without seeing the beads of sweat on his forehead, how is the jury supposed to know?

(Most states have a hearsay exception that would apply in this situation, but not Massachusetts.)

 

[JayJay328]

Here's the thing about a text message from the phone of a dead man. How do you know the deceased sent the text?

There's very good evidence that they were sent from his phone. As for whether he was actually the one who composed and sent them -- instead of, say, Aaron Hernandez after having grabbed the phone from him -- we can't know anything for sure, but that seems like the only reasonable possibility. I don't think a question about who sent the texts would bar them from being admitted into evidence.

What bars them from being admitted into evidence is that the dead man did send them, and he can no longer be cross-examined about them (what with being dead and all), so Massachusetts law deems the texts to be inadmissible hearsay.

That's ridiculous. What about the person receiving the texts? Why can't they be cross examined and have the texts admissible.

The idea is that when somebody says something, the jury should have the chance to evaluate whether he's lying or telling the truth by observing the sweat dripping down his forehead, his nervous tics, his tendency to gulp between words, etc. So whatever the guy said outside the courtroom, we're going to make him say it again in front of the jury and subject him to cross-examination about it. We can't do that with a dead guy, so there's no way for the jury to evaluate his truthfulness, and his out-of-court statements are therefore inadmissible.

Cross-examining the recipient of the texts would not really help the jurors determine for themselves whether the sender looked and sounded like he was telling the truth. Maybe he was lying about being with "NFL." Without seeing the beads of sweat on his forehead, how is the jury supposed to know?

(Most states have a hearsay exception that would apply in this situation, but not Massachusetts.)

I think I'm saying the same thing basically, I'm just adding that a defense lawyer could argue another killer could have sent a text from the phone incriminating AH aka NFL but we don't know because the owner of the phone is dead and cannot be questioned.

 

[Faust]

Start of Aaron Hernandez's murder trial delayed until Thursday

 

[Dippa]

Opening statements going on now. Link to live stream

 

[Dippa]

Opening statements going on now. Link to live stream

Also on CNN right now...

 

[Bucky86]

Anything interesting so far?

 

[PinkydaPimp]

Anything interesting so far?

i caught about 20 mins of the defense opening arguments. seemed very vague. didnt catch the prosecution.

 

[Dippa]

I watched the prosecution and some of the defense during my lunch break. Nothing too interesting so far IMO. The prosecution basically just went through a timeline of events with surveillance video, phone pings, etc. If you've been following the case, nothing really new came out of it. It was basically just a summary of the evidence they had.

I agree that the prosecutor seemed vague, and didn't provide many counter-arguments to specific evidence. It was more him asking the jury to keep an open mind, that the prosecution only told one side of the story, etc. He did try to poke a few holes in the defense's case by saying that renting cars was normal for Hernandez, and suggesting that the gun he was seen holding on video could have been a iPhone or remote control instead.

 

[msommer]

I watched the prosecution and some of the defense during my lunch break. Nothing too interesting so far IMO. The prosecution basically just went through a timeline of events with surveillance video, phone pings, etc. If you've been following the case, nothing really new came out of it. It was basically just a summary of the evidence they had.

I agree that the prosecutor seemed vague, and didn't provide many counter-arguments to specific evidence. It was more him asking the jury to keep an open mind, that the prosecution only told one side of the story, etc. He did try to poke a few holes in the defense's case by saying that renting cars was normal for Hernandez, and suggesting that the gun he was seen holding on video could have been a iPhone or remote control instead.

Why is the prosecutor trying to put doubt in the jury's mind concerning evidence?

Is he from Missouri?

 

[fantasycurse42]

Opening statements concluded shortly after 1:30 p.m. ET. Once both attorneys concluded their statements, the judge reminded the jury of Massachusetts' "joint venture" law, which allows for an individual to be convicted of murder even if they are simply involved with the act and did not do the actual killing ... if, for instance, someone was present at a murder but did not actually perform the deed. This is critical in cases of circumstantial evidence, as the Hernandez trial is.

There is no chance they overcome this. He is so guilty, I'd bet anything it was him who pulled the trigger, but the prosecutor doesn't even need to prove that.

They have an OJ level of evidence. Is it possible to pool 12 people together that are this stupid twice in a 21 year span?

 

[unckeyherb]

Opening statements concluded shortly after 1:30 p.m. ET. Once both attorneys concluded their statements, the judge reminded the jury of Massachusetts' "joint venture" law, which allows for an individual to be convicted of murder even if they are simply involved with the act and did not do the actual killing ... if, for instance, someone was present at a murder but did not actually perform the deed. This is critical in cases of circumstantial evidence, as the Hernandez trial is.

There is no chance they overcome this. He is so guilty, I'd bet anything it was him who pulled the trigger, but the prosecutor doesn't even need to prove that.

They have an OJ level of evidence. Is it possible to pool 12 people together that are this stupid twice in a 21 year span?

While I agree with your assertion that he is guilty, regarding the bolded...have you been out in the world lately? I could go to my grocery store, right now, and find 12 people plus alternates that are that stupid.

 

[msommer]

They have an OJ level of evidence. Is it possible to pool 12 people together that are this stupid twice in a 21 year span?

It's a different part of the country. HTH

 

[fantasycurse42]

Opening statements concluded shortly after 1:30 p.m. ET. Once both attorneys concluded their statements, the judge reminded the jury of Massachusetts' "joint venture" law, which allows for an individual to be convicted of murder even if they are simply involved with the act and did not do the actual killing ... if, for instance, someone was present at a murder but did not actually perform the deed. This is critical in cases of circumstantial evidence, as the Hernandez trial is.

There is no chance they overcome this. He is so guilty, I'd bet anything it was him who pulled the trigger, but the prosecutor doesn't even need to prove that.

They have an OJ level of evidence. Is it possible to pool 12 people together that are this stupid twice in a 21 year span?

While I agree with your assertion that he is guilty, regarding the bolded...have you been out in the world lately? I could go to my grocery store, right now, and find 12 people plus alternates that are that stupid.

Of course you can, but part of the prosecutor's job is to make sure you don't.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Ben Volin‏@BenVolin12 mins12 minutes ago

A footprint matching Hernandez's sneaker, and Hernandez's DNA on a .45 caliber shell casing, were also found http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/01/29/aaron-hernandez-murder-trial-get-underway/I3pxtcGGb4dk39gNxbJibK/story.html?p1=Article_Trending_Most_Viewed …

 

[Ignoramus]

This whole farce is just another attempt by all the haters to bring down the Pats.

 

[ROCKET]

Can't wait to get him back after his acquittal and maybe some day erect a statue of him in front of Gillette.

 

[GregR]

Opening statements concluded shortly after 1:30 p.m. ET. Once both attorneys concluded their statements, the judge reminded the jury of Massachusetts' "joint venture" law, which allows for an individual to be convicted of murder even if they are simply involved with the act and did not do the actual killing ... if, for instance, someone was present at a murder but did not actually perform the deed. This is critical in cases of circumstantial evidence, as the Hernandez trial is.

There is no chance they overcome this. He is so guilty, I'd bet anything it was him who pulled the trigger, but the prosecutor doesn't even need to prove that.

They have an OJ level of evidence. Is it possible to pool 12 people together that are this stupid twice in a 21 year span?

I don't think it even takes biased jurors. OJ is actually a good example for this without even getting into whether jurors biased. What seems like overwhelming evidence doesn't necessarily equate to a slam dunk case when it plays out in court.

With OJ, they had some key evidence in the gloves not fitting whatever reason... and then a police detective proven to have lied on the stand to a degree he was later convicted for perjury. Said detective then pleads the 5th Amendment when asked whether he'd planted or manufactured evidence. The defense did a great job of calling into question any evidence he'd been involved with.

Regardless of believing OJ actually did it, I wouldn't fault someone restricting their decision to what was shown in court like a juror is supposed to... and deciding enough reasonable doubt was left in the case that they couldn't convict.

Hopefully justice gets done in Hernandez's case even if it might not have in OJ's.

 

[Bucky86]

Ben Volin‏@BenVolin12 mins12 minutes ago

A footprint matching Hernandez's sneaker, and Hernandez's DNA on a .45 caliber shell casing, were also found http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/01/29/aaron-hernandez-murder-trial-get-underway/I3pxtcGGb4dk39gNxbJibK/story.html?p1=Article_Trending_Most_Viewed …

oof. He's going down.

 

[Anarchy99]

Ben Volin‏@BenVolin12 mins12 minutes ago

A footprint matching Hernandez's sneaker, and Hernandez's DNA on a .45 caliber shell casing, were also found http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/01/29/aaron-hernandez-murder-trial-get-underway/I3pxtcGGb4dk39gNxbJibK/story.html?p1=Article_Trending_Most_Viewed …

oof. He's going down.

Twenty years ago I watched the OJ trial intently and felt there was no way he good be found not guilty. So at this point, I can honestly say anything is possible (to quote Kevin Garnett).

 

[Faust]

Prosecutor: Joint, sneaker print key evidence in Hernandez trial