G
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Hernandez convicted of first-degree murder; found deceased in his cell. (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Faust
- Start date
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
I don't think you need to say that Lloyd was allegedly murdered, lol.
The text messages thing is a little misleading based on the headlines. The judge allowed the introduction of the text messages (via testimony from Lloyd's sister) to establish a timline as to when Lloyd was alive. The sister was not allowed to discuss the content of the messages ("I'm with NFL) or her reaction to them (she thought that he felt like he was in danger). The judge ruled that inadmissable as heresay and then initially ruled that they couldn't even be used to establish Lloyd was alived because of that same ruling. She has reversed the latter part, but the jury will still not hear what Lloyd texted.
Fwiw was listening to a legal analsyt on talk radio who thought the defense had the upper hand at this point: no murder weapon, no witness and no motive. Also mentioned that he could get like 5 years for just the weapons charges, minus time served, even if found not guilty of murder. Also said the case for the other murder he's charged with is stronger as they have the murder weapon. Did say we haven't heard all the evidence so opinion can change.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
He's too much of a thug, there is too much evidence, and he's way too guilty.
He never sees the light of day again, whether this case, the other case, or he shanks someone in jail. He belongs there, that is who he is.
G
General Tso
Guest
There's no doubt he's a thug, at least in my mind. But in this particular case, what proof do they have that he pulled the trigger? We know he was there, but who's to say one of the others didn't commit the act?
squistion
Footballguy
It doesn't matter under Massachusetts law:
http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/02/23/aaron-hernandez-trial-day-13
Under Massachusetts' joint venture law, all those acting in concert to assist in a murder are guilty. No need to prove who was the triggerman -- or even a motive, which is conspicuously missing in the prosecution's pile of evidence. Prosecutors promise even more evidence hinting that this is a slam dunk circumstantial case.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
The next person to not understand the joint venture law gets 10 million demerits, or even worse, I'm sending Hernandez to pay them a visit.
Regardless, I can't think of any reason two random strangers would kill Lloyd as opposed to the guy who knew him. Whether he pulled the trigger or not (& I would wager a testicle he did), they're all in it together. He was obviously the mastermind.
Regardless, I can't think of any reason two random strangers would kill Lloyd as opposed to the guy who knew him. Whether he pulled the trigger or not (& I would wager a testicle he did), they're all in it together. He was obviously the mastermind.
G
General Tso
Guest
Thanks. I found a good article on it - http://sports.yahoo.com/news/aaron-hernandez-could-be-found-guilty-of-murder-even-if-it-s-not-proven-he-pulled-the-trigger-010829290.html
What do these so-called radio analysts know anyways? We all know he has no shot of walking as PeytonMarino says so and he knows everything, just ask him.
lod01
Footballguy
This guy is destined for the slammer regardless of verdict. All his $ will be gone and he won't be playing in the NFL ever again with the new policies. No team will touch him. He's toxic. So thus he will have to go back to the street where he came from and therefore will eventually finds his current home a permanent one. See OJ.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The exclusion of the text message is still outrageous. The victim actually covered himself with a text to someone he trusted and it's not enough, it's insane.
Banger
Footballguy
Spin
Footballguy
Why did the text get thrown out? Because NFL was to ambiguous? Curious the judge's reasoning.
Banger
Footballguy
initially I believe because it was considered hearsay and the witness couldn't be cross examined but I think they let it in now for the value of the actual text and the words it contained but for a time line proving he was alive and sending texts from a location prior to his murder.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
The content of the text is still inadmissible if I understand correctly.
Spin
Footballguy
Right, that's what I don't understand. As someone not familiar with the intricacies of the legal system, what is the reasoning for not allowing the content to be allowed. Had he typed "I'm with Aaron Hernandez" it would be admissible, but because he said "I'm with NFL" it's not?
What is the argument the defense attorney made, that the judge bought that lead to the judge not allowing the content to be heard/viewed.
Peyton Marino
Footballguy
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
I'd guess bc it is speculation too, but we need a lawyer to clarify.Spin said:
No, "I'm with Aaron Hernandez" would be inadmissible for the same reason as "I'm with NFL": it's hearsay. In either case, Lloyd could have been lying about whom he was with, and there's no way for the jury to evaluate whether he was lying because they can't see him get cross-examined on it and observe his tone of voice, cadence, mannerisms, etc.Spin said:
The general rule is that if you want the jury to take your word for something, you have to tell it to the jury yourself. You can't text it to your sister and then have your sister tell it to the jury on your behalf.
There are a lot of exceptions to that rule, and in most states Lloyd's texts would fall into one of those exceptions, but not in Massachusetts.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, the fact that the text messages were sent is admissible. It's evidence that Lloyd was alive at the time they were sent, and nobody has to take his word for anything in that regard. But the content of the messages was ruled inadmissible because that's something whose truth we'd have to take Lloyd's word for.fantasycurse42 said:
(I think Banger typed "now" when he meant "not.")
Last edited by a moderator:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Theoretically, it might not prove anyone was alive. If AH stole Lloyd's phone after he was dead, they could have just been using his phone pretending to be Lloyd. Wouldn't the prosecution need a witness to verify the originator of a text message? Or would courts these days just take any form of electronic communication at face value having been sent by the rightful owner?
Correct: it's not proof. But it's evidence, since texts are sent from alive people way more often than they're sent from dead people.
AH is free to make this argument, but I think it might be more harmful to his defense than helpful.
Last edited by a moderator:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
The point being that the bad guys might try to extend the timeline and lifeline of a victim, suggesting that said body was still alive when they were last together. Clearly this would not apply in the AH case.
Last I checked, riding in a car with someone was not illegal in many states.
Last I checked, riding in a car with someone was not illegal in many states.
BigJim®
Footballguy
Does it? Couldn't a murderer cover his tracks using the victim's phone to text that the victim is fine and dandy and with someone other than the murderer?
BTW - I'm not asking because I think the evidence should be out. Personally I think it is silly to exclude evidence like this rather than forcing the defense to argue why it is untrustworthy, JMHO. Just pointing out the gymnastics one might perform to justify valid evidence being invalid as a matter of law. Juries need to be allowed to use their own common sense. Really not understanding how this is different from all other circumstantial cases, where juries are allowed to process suggestive facts and decide whether those facts, in entirety, meet beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
Sure, but I don't think the defense will be advancing that theory in this case because I think it's evident from cell tower pings or whatever that Lloyd's phone and Hernandez's phone were hanging out together when the texts were sent.
Last edited by a moderator:
GregR
Footballguy
Police testified that the shell casing found in AH's rental car was fired from the same gun as the shell casings recovered at the murder scene.
It seems like this is pretty damning evidence. Even having a murder weapon doesn't necessarily mean you can tie it to the accused unless there are fingerprints or you can trace ownership or something. This pretty much puts his car and the murder weapon as having been together.
It seems like this is pretty damning evidence. Even having a murder weapon doesn't necessarily mean you can tie it to the accused unless there are fingerprints or you can trace ownership or something. This pretty much puts his car and the murder weapon as having been together.
BigJim®
Footballguy
Understood. Main point is it doesn't really establish that he sent them, or that he was alive for that matter, all other facts of this case aside. I'm definitely not contesting your description of the law (which I'm sure is spot on) but it seems like a silly nuance to determine admissibility vs. inadmissibility of such a key fact. Beyond that, using this to justify admissibility of the transmission, but not its content, seems outlandish. Law books aside, a communication that was unquestionably sent and recorded is a fact that should absolutely be admissible evidence - if you're starting from the assumption he was alive and sent it. The defense can go ahead and cast doubt as to the intent/interpretation on cross, but those words are facts carved into time. A million times more tangible and reliable than an oral dying utterance.
Last edited by a moderator:
unckeyherb
Footballguy
I still don't understand how, in the opening days of the trial, Hernandez's attorneys stipulated that he was there at the murder scene. Unless I'm wrong, they said freely that AH was there. At that point all you have to prove is that Lloyd was murdered-shouldn't be too hard-and AH is guilty under Mass law..right? I thought I'd misread it at first. What sort of legal standing could they base a not guilty plea on, if they admit AH was there?
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
When listening to the arraignment over a year and a half ago, this was the most shocking piece of evidence I heard. He might as well of left an autographed game-worn jersey signed with details of the murder.
You put matching shell casings in his car and at the scene, while being able to place him there, I don't know how he can be innocent under he joint venture law. The fact that his two friends didn't know Lloyd basically means he is the only one with a motive, whatever and however petty it might be.
I don't need a motive or the weapon, there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to prove he did it IMO.
Banger
Footballguy
clearly tainted evidence/planted by the cops who zealously wanted to take down an innocent NFL star.
Spin
Footballguy
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Couldn't the prosecution just call the sister to the stand and ask her a series of questions that cover everything that was in the texts? Did your brother contact you that evening? How to he contact you that evening? What did he tell you? Did he say where he was or who he was with? The defense could then cross examine her (since they can't cross examine her brother).Thanks MT, exactly what I was looking for
Road Warriors
Footballguy
Road Warriors said:Objection: Hearsay!Couldn't the prosecution just call the sister to the stand and ask her a series of questions that cover everything that was in the texts? Did your brother contact you that evening? How to he contact you that evening? What did he tell you? Did he say where he was or who he was with? The defense could then cross examine her (since they can't cross examine her brother).Thanks MT, exactly what I was looking for
No lawyer here, but I believe this is the very definition of hearsay. In my limited ( and mostly TV drama borne ) understanding, a witness can't testify on what someone else said to them.
Heard a rumor that one of the cops traded him away from his dynasty team his rookie season and was so full of regret that he wanted him out of the league. There's audio of one of the cops at Hernandez's home muttering, "he's not gonna score no more points in my league"
Objection: calls for hearsay.
Road Warriors is right. His sister can testify about stuff that she knows first-hand, but she generally can't testify about what somebody else told her. I just massively oversimplified, but here's a fuller explanation.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I still am confused as to what is hearsay and what isn't. For example, couldn't the D.A. ask the sister if she received a text from her dead brother and then provide a printout of the texts that were sent? That's documented. She would not be adding in things about a conversation that could not be followed up on (as the guy is now deceased).
Put another way. "I read an article in People magazine that said BLAH BLAH BLAH." Then the prosecution produces a copy of the article. That wouldn't be hearsay . . . they have the article. How is that different than someone saying they received a text and then providing a printout of the text messages?
No one would be interpreting what was said, the meaning, if it was sarcastic or a joke, etc. The point would be a text of these words was sent at 11:22 PM. Period, end of story. How is that hearsay?
If I'm telling you things that are happening at my keyboard right now, it's hearsay when you tell someone else, even if you print this message out for them.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
So if I went to court and testified that "Maurile Trombley said BLAH BLAH BLAH in an FBG message board thread" which had a time/date stamp on it, that would still be hearsay even though it is posted on the web for the world to see? Can't it be used to establish a timeline based on the time/date stamp?
GregR
Footballguy
Testifying he posted on a message board establishes the timeline. Testifying what he said in the message isn't necessary to establish a timeline, and sharing it would be hearsay.
That's basically what the judge is allowing... the sister can testify she got a text from him and establish the timeline... but she's not allowed to share what was said in the text as the contents are hearsay and MA doesn't make an exception for when it's the murder victim.
Billy Bats
Footballguy
AH is pretty chill for being on trial for murder.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/aaron-hernandez--upbeat-murder-defendant-005755065.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/aaron-hernandez--upbeat-murder-defendant-005755065.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma
Hearsay is an outof court statement offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
So, if I testify "Jimmy said the sun is shining in Orlando on Tuesday"
The testimony can be offered to prove that Jimmy said those words. But it can't be used to prove that the sun was actually shining on that day.
Here, the testimony could be offered to prove a text was received. But it can't prove who it was from or the content of what was said in the text ("I am with AH")
Note there are a number of legal exceptions to the hearsay rule where some of those types of statements can still get in
So, if I testify "Jimmy said the sun is shining in Orlando on Tuesday"
The testimony can be offered to prove that Jimmy said those words. But it can't be used to prove that the sun was actually shining on that day.
Here, the testimony could be offered to prove a text was received. But it can't prove who it was from or the content of what was said in the text ("I am with AH")
Note there are a number of legal exceptions to the hearsay rule where some of those types of statements can still get in
CalBear
Footballguy
The texts would be hearsay because they were sent from outside the courtroom, were not sent under oath, etc.
The D.A. could ask the sister if she received any texts -- but as soon as he asks what the texts said, or seeks to introduce the content of the texts into evidence, then you'll get a hearsay objection.
The "BLAH BLAH BLAH" part would be hearsay.
Let's say that the article in People magazine said that Bruce Jenner was in a car accident. The magazine article could not be admitted into evidence in order to prove that Bruce Jenner was in a car accident, because that would be hearsay. The author of the article was not under oath, etc. If there's some other reason to introduce the article into evidence, such as that some particular reader thought that Bruce Jenner was in a car accident (because she'd read the article), it could be introduced for that reason if the reader's subjective beliefs were relevant to the case.
In the Hernandez situation, the text said that Lloyd was with Hernandez. The texts cannot be introduced to show that Lloyd was with Hernandez, because that would be hearsay. They can be introduced to show that Lloyd's phone was still functioning at the time -- but for that, we don't need the content of the texts, but just the fact that they were sent and received. Which is what the court is allowing.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigJim®
Footballguy
Just out of curiosity, how does this differ from personal journal entries we hear about where someone writes or tells a friend, "if anything ever happens to me, John did it. He's been increasingly violent and told me he'd never allow me to take the kids from him" (or whatnot). I assume these would similarly be hearsay, but also think I've heard of them being evidence at trial.
Similar threads
