What's new
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)

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.
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.

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.
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.
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.
I hope I never have to memorize all the hearsay exceptions again. But there's generally an exception for people who say stuff when they think they're about to be killed. (See federal rule 804(b)(2), for example.)

 
Whenever I hear a damning piece of evidence, I think there can't be anything else, nobody is this stupid....

BUT

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ex-nfl-star-sent-money-man-sold-guns-165502480--nfl.html
Could there be anymore evidence in this case? It almost seems like they literally have a mountain of evidence. Pretty sure he isn't getting off.
Honestly, in terms of circumstantial evidence, I'm going to lean no. This might have been the poorest planned murder in the history of the world. If he didn't have millions, the trial would be over and the sentence of life would've already been rendered. Even with his powerful legal team, all they're doing is delaying the blatantly inevitable.

 
Whenever I hear a damning piece of evidence, I think there can't be anything else, nobody is this stupid....

BUT

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ex-nfl-star-sent-money-man-sold-guns-165502480--nfl.html
Could there be anymore evidence in this case? It almost seems like they literally have a mountain of evidence. Pretty sure he isn't getting off.
Honestly, in terms of circumstantial evidence, I'm going to lean no. This might have been the poorest planned murder in the history of the world. If he didn't have millions, the trial would be over and the sentence of life would've already been rendered. Even with his powerful legal team, all they're doing is delaying the blatantly inevitable.
Agreed. I think people think of circumstantial evidence as bad evidence, but this is a case that shows how it can "prove" beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is guilty without the murder weapon and an eyewitness/video of him doing it. Heck, his attorney already put him at the murder scene.

 
Going out on a limb, AH isn't looking like a criminal mastermind.

The scary thing, this sounded premeditated. This was his PLAN.

If he gets life in prison, they should just tattoo POOR IMPULSE CONTROL on his forehead.

PCP is a crazy drug (alleged use).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whenever I hear a damning piece of evidence, I think there can't be anything else, nobody is this stupid....

BUT

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ex-nfl-star-sent-money-man-sold-guns-165502480--nfl.html
Could there be anymore evidence in this case? It almost seems like they literally have a mountain of evidence. Pretty sure he isn't getting off.
Honestly, in terms of circumstantial evidence, I'm going to lean no. This might have been the poorest planned murder in the history of the world. If he didn't have millions, the trial would be over and the sentence of life would've already been rendered. Even with his powerful legal team, all they're doing is delaying the blatantly inevitable making more money.
Fixed.

 
Way too much information... What the #### is this guy talking about? Get to the ####### point, you're losing me, and I am extremely for the prosecution here.

 
Way too much information... What the #### is this guy talking about? Get to the ####### point, you're losing me, and I am extremely for the prosecution here.
lol yea im sitting here like, where are we going with all this. I can only imagine the jurors are tuning out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Way too much information... What the #### is this guy talking about? Get to the ####### point, you're losing me, and I am extremely for the prosecution here.
lol yea im sitting here like, where are we going with all this. I can only imagine the jurors are tuning out.
And did you eat dinner on this night? And did Aaron drive to dinner? And why did his barber come over? (to cut his hair you ####### moron!!), and did Aaron pay for dinner, and did someone ask for an autograph.

Holy #### this guy is absolutely ####### terrible.

 
Way too much information... What the #### is this guy talking about? Get to the ####### point, you're losing me, and I am extremely for the prosecution here.
lol yea im sitting here like, where are we going with all this. I can only imagine the jurors are tuning out.
And did you eat dinner on this night? And did Aaron drive to dinner? And why did his barber come over? (to cut his hair you ####### moron!!), and did Aaron pay for dinner, and did someone ask for an autograph.

Holy #### this guy is absolutely ####### terrible.
so they are just gonna broadcast her email and phone number to the entire world and SSN!? SMDH

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Honestly, whatever his point is and whenever he gets to it, is completely lost on me by now. This is the exact opposite effect that he wants from her.

 
Honestly, whatever his point is and whenever he gets to it, is completely lost on me by now. This is the exact opposite effect that he wants from her.
they went through all that to establish thats his phone number? :lmao: prosecution is over thinking this.
Much more effective than asking, "is this Aaron's phone number?"

This guy sucks so bad!
i havent followed much of this trial. has he been this bad the entire time?

 
Honestly, whatever his point is and whenever he gets to it, is completely lost on me by now. This is the exact opposite effect that he wants from her.
they went through all that to establish thats his phone number? :lmao: prosecution is over thinking this.
Much more effective than asking, "is this Aaron's phone number?"

This guy sucks so bad!
i havent followed much of this trial. has he been this bad the entire time?
I've just been reading notes, this is my first live streaming. This case should be open and shut, but this guy sounds like he can blow it.

 
Tried to listen again... Not sure what the prosecutor is trying to do besides put everyone to bed. Can't listen anymore and I honestly feel bad for journalists that have to sum up what this guy has been talking about all day.

Absolutely awful line of questioning.

 
is he going line by line on a phone bill? he already lost the jury.
LOL literally line by line. Asking if her number was hers, about 50-100 times. It was awful!

Between this, and exposing her email, phone number Social security number to the world this has turned into a complete mess!!

 
I tuned out hours ago, anything accomplished?
Tuned in just as it ended. News articles say she testified she dropped Hernandez off at the police station to be questioned and he asked her to go give money to Ernest Wallace, one of the others charged with the murder.

 
How did Hernandez hide his pot smoking in today's NFL?

Whizzinator, LT, we've heard stories before

 
If you dont have a murder weapon or witness how do they win this?
Other evidence
I dont see that being easy.
It wont be. And the prosecution is being so long winded that they are likely losing the jury.
It should be...

They can place him at the scene, they can place him with the victim, and they have a shell casing matching those found at the murder scene in his car.

IDK how a juror doesn't find him guilty just with that info alone. If he gets off, it's on the prosecutor and him alone IMO. Yesterday was my first day watching and this guy just went in circles with useless info.

 
I think having a murder weapon is only as beneficial as how well you can use it to tie the suspect to the murder. If it, say, has fingerprints it could be damning. But if there are no prints, no line of sales that connects him to the gun, it's not worth much as evidence.

In the latter case, the shell casings found at the scene and in Hernandez's rental car would be much stronger evidence than the murder weapon might be depending on the situation. It sounds like a very strong case against him. He's pretty well tied to the scene of the crime, and they don't have to prove he pulled the trigger.

 
I'm speculating here, but the prosecutor's slew of questions might be establishing in her testimony facts so later important evidence can't be denied by her testimony.

You don't want to bring up damning emails, phone calls, or bank records, only to have her testify that isn't her email account or phone number, that she didn't make those calls/send those emails, or that that isn't her bank account. You don't want the jury to see evidence put in doubt by her testimony.

So you nail down the details before you bring up the important stuff. If she says, "That call was never placed on my phone", and that's going to derail evidence centering around a call from the phone, you found out in advance and can choose not to present it. But if they have her in early testimony claiming every call made from the phone, now she can't go that route later on.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you dont have a murder weapon or witness how do they win this?
Other evidence
I dont see that being easy.
It wont be. And the prosecution is being so long winded that they are likely losing the jury.
It should be...

They can place him at the scene, they can place him with the victim, and they have a shell casing matching those found at the murder scene in his car.

IDK how a juror doesn't find him guilty just with that info alone. If he gets off, it's on the prosecutor and him alone IMO. Yesterday was my first day watching and this guy just went in circles with useless info.
True. But remember, what we see and read is completely different from what the juror sees(as we saw by testimony yesterday). They wont get concise write ups. They are getting flooded with all this information. They also have to have the intelligence to link it all together..... it only takes one to just not see it.

 
If you dont have a murder weapon or witness how do they win this?
I don't see why having the murder weapon is so important.

If the state doesn't have a murder weapon, what are we supposed to infer? That maybe there is no murder weapon, and therefore no murder? Maybe Lloyd died of natural causes?

Obviously not that. There's no question that Lloyd was murdered. The only question is whether Hernandez was involved. There's an awful lot of evidence that he was.

It'd be nice if the police had the murder weapon with Hernandez's finger prints on it, but that's certainly not required for a conviction. Think about all the cases where a murder weapon doesn't even exist -- choking by hand, pushing someone off a cliff, drowning, poisoning, etc. Lots of murder cases don't have murder weapons, but many still result in convictions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Greg Russell said:
I'm speculating here, but the prosecutor's slew of questions might be establishing in her testimony facts so later important evidence can't be denied by her testimony.

You don't want to bring up damning emails, phone calls, or bank records, only to have her testify that isn't her email account or phone number, that she didn't make those calls/send those emails, or that that isn't her bank account. You don't want the jury to see evidence put in doubt by her testimony.

So you nail down the details before you bring up the important stuff. If she says, "That call was never placed on my phone", and that's going to derail evidence centering around a call from the phone, you found out in advance and can choose not to present it. But if they have her in early testimony claiming every call made from the phone, now she can't go that route later on.
The problem is, he wasted 8 hours establishing her phone number, Hernandez smokes pot, his barber provides him with pot, etc... He lost me, and I'd imagine a few jurors too.

 
Florio from PFT is a former practicing attorney (not sure if in criminal law).

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/30/jenkins-admits-to-disposing-of-box-at-hernandezs-request/

Salient excerpts on circumstatial evidence:

"Prosecutors have long believed that the box contained the murder weapon, a Glock used to repeatedly shoot Lloyd. And the jury now has enough evidence to account for the absence of the murder weapon, since common sense suggests that innocent people rarely instruct a loved one to remove a box with unknown contents from the house during the early stages of an investigation arising from the murder of a friend whose body was found not far from the house from which the mystery box was removed and disposed.

On Friday, Jenkins admitted that she asked Hernandez if he killed Lloyd, and that Hernandez denied it. The mere fact that she asked the question could become strong circumstantial evidence of guilty during jury deliberations. While Hernandez’s denial is as useful as the standard response to the “do I look fat in these jeans?” question, the “hey, did you kill that guy?” question rarely gets floated in the households of the non-criminal."

 
Florio from PFT is a former practicing attorney (not sure if in criminal law).

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/30/jenkins-admits-to-disposing-of-box-at-hernandezs-request/

Salient excerpts on circumstatial evidence:

"Prosecutors have long believed that the box contained the murder weapon, a Glock used to repeatedly shoot Lloyd. And the jury now has enough evidence to account for the absence of the murder weapon, since common sense suggests that innocent people rarely instruct a loved one to remove a box with unknown contents from the house during the early stages of an investigation arising from the murder of a friend whose body was found not far from the house from which the mystery box was removed and disposed.

On Friday, Jenkins admitted that she asked Hernandez if he killed Lloyd, and that Hernandez denied it. The mere fact that she asked the question could become strong circumstantial evidence of guilty during jury deliberations. While Hernandez’s denial is as useful as the standard response to the “do I look fat in these jeans?” question, the “hey, did you kill that guy?” question rarely gets floated in the households of the non-criminal."
Was reading the S.I. tweets from their law expert. Mentioned how it was interesting how Jenkins could remember every little detail about their life up the murder, but had serious memory lapses on the particular day she was asked to remove the box. Says it'll be hard to prove she's lying in order to revoke her immunity, but it's clear she's covering.

 
Florio from PFT is a former practicing attorney (not sure if in criminal law).

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/30/jenkins-admits-to-disposing-of-box-at-hernandezs-request/

Salient excerpts on circumstatial evidence:

"Prosecutors have long believed that the box contained the murder weapon, a Glock used to repeatedly shoot Lloyd. And the jury now has enough evidence to account for the absence of the murder weapon, since common sense suggests that innocent people rarely instruct a loved one to remove a box with unknown contents from the house during the early stages of an investigation arising from the murder of a friend whose body was found not far from the house from which the mystery box was removed and disposed.

On Friday, Jenkins admitted that she asked Hernandez if he killed Lloyd, and that Hernandez denied it. The mere fact that she asked the question could become strong circumstantial evidence of guilty during jury deliberations. While Hernandez’s denial is as useful as the standard response to the “do I look fat in these jeans?” question, the “hey, did you kill that guy?” question rarely gets floated in the households of the non-criminal."
Was reading the S.I. tweets from their law expert. Mentioned how it was interesting how Jenkins could remember every little detail about their life up the murder, but had serious memory lapses on the particular day she was asked to remove the box. Says it'll be hard to prove she's lying in order to revoke her immunity, but it's clear she's covering.
And that she didn't know what was in the box, but she thought enough to cover the top of the box with baby clothes so the contents wouldn't be exposed. But then when she returned to the house after getting rid of the box, she brought the clothes back with her...so wherever she dumped the box, she wasn't worried about the contents being exposed as they were left uncovered.

 
They don't need her testimony... This is the dumbest prosecution on Earth. Did they really expect her to tell them about the murder weapon? A highly trained monkey could prosecute this case after watching a Law and Order marathon. With the amount of evidence they have, there shouldn't be complications of having to ask the defendant's fiancee/baby mama to testify against him. She obviously knows what he is about and who he is and doesn't give a ####, this isn't Mother Teresa on the ####### stand.

Someone should go punch the prosecutor in the face and slap some sense into him. If he doesn't get a conviction here, he needs to retire.

 
They don't need her testimony... This is the dumbest prosecution on Earth. Did they really expect her to tell them about the murder weapon? A highly trained monkey could prosecute this case after watching a Law and Order marathon. With the amount of evidence they have, there shouldn't be complications of having to ask the defendant's fiancee/baby mama to testify against him. She obviously knows what he is about and who he is and doesn't give a ####, this isn't Mother Teresa on the ####### stand.

Someone should go punch the prosecutor in the face and slap some sense into him. If he doesn't get a conviction here, he needs to retire.
Legal Eagle Michael McCann was just on the radio and said she was the most important witness by far. No sane member on the jury will believe her story that she was asked to remove a box but couldn't remember anything about it, where it ended up, or what was inside it.

He also said the prosecution has not provided any motive for why AH would have wanted to kill Lloyd. He mentioned that is not a legal requirement, but he did suggest that could be an issue for some members of the jury.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top