OT - Aaron Hernandez found guilty of all charges
I'm surprised this was not posted yet. Here is a video of the verdict and Aaron's, what looks to be, surprised face when the verdict was read. I did not follow the trial too closely, but read somewhere that the prosecution won this trial without establishing a motive and no eye witness.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/15/verdict-reached-in-aaron-hernandez-murder-trial/
EDIT: This conviction is coupled with life in prison without the possibility of parole.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:04 AM ^
April 15th, 2015 at 11:12 AM ^
If you get to eat it.
"Gimme yo cocktail - fruit!"
April 15th, 2015 at 12:33 PM ^
In Joliet on Thursday nights they serve a wicked pepper steak
April 15th, 2015 at 11:06 AM ^
April 15th, 2015 at 11:08 AM ^
Two more murders, but I think it will be one trial, as he [allegedly] killed two people at one time.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:24 AM ^
#AHK3D
April 15th, 2015 at 11:08 AM ^
Yes. I also read that, so he will have to go through this yet again, but it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things considering he will never be released from prison.
But for the victims' families, the "grand scheme" includes getting closure rather than the prosecutor saying, screw it he's in for life anyway.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:06 AM ^
The prosecution took months to present over 100 witnesses. The defense wrapped up their witnesses in a day. I'm not sure if they were over confident or just had nothing to say in defense.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:44 AM ^
When there's video involved it becomes a lot harder to argue your innocence.
April 15th, 2015 at 12:05 PM ^
They were simply going for the reasonable doubt defense. There was no murder weapon and no witnesses, so they were just trying to establish that the prosecution hadn't met the burden of proof. Tried to use a bogus PCP rage claim for the other 2 guys he was with that night. The prosecution had a mountain of circumstantial evidence. Enough that the defense admitted Hernandez was at the murder scene in their closing arguments, but that he didn't do it.
Under the law they have, whether he pulled the trigger or not didn't matter. Admitting he was there was actually a idiotic move on the part of the defense, given that fact.
of him at the industrial park? I think that's what the issue was - don't deny what they already knew.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:07 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 15th, 2015 at 11:25 AM ^
Tosh.uh-oh
Good reference.
April 15th, 2015 at 12:04 PM ^
Holy hell. Hadn't seen that before.
April 15th, 2015 at 12:24 PM ^
Because I'm all for Hernandez rotting, not rioting. Rioting may hurt others.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:07 AM ^
April 15th, 2015 at 11:07 AM ^
college coach thinks of this.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:32 AM ^
Does this mean he is not in Urban's circle of trust anymore?
April 15th, 2015 at 11:41 AM ^
"I thought I said I wanted thin crust"
April 15th, 2015 at 12:13 PM ^
April 15th, 2015 at 11:08 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 15th, 2015 at 11:09 AM ^
April 15th, 2015 at 11:22 AM ^
And churlish.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:10 AM ^
I'm confused...how can he be facing a life sentence without the possibility of parole if no motive was ever established? Not that I doubt that he did it at this point and had some manner of premeditation, but if that was never proven in court, kinda makes it difficult to convict him for first degree murder....
April 15th, 2015 at 11:11 AM ^
April 15th, 2015 at 11:18 AM ^
That much is clear, but I was under the impression that establishing a motive was a pretty significant part of convicting someone for 1st degree murder. Knowing that I can imagine the defense is a little bit shocked the verdict didn't get bumped down to 2nd degree. Then again, I'm completely out of my league here on this subject.
Motive is not one of the elements that the prosecution must prove. It helps create a narrative for the jury, but outside of that, it's not really important.
How exactly do you "establish" motive? There are any number of reasons why a human being would kill another. No one can see inside anyone's mind and determine what motivated them, especially a cold, sociopathic type of person. You might be thinking of intent, which can be proven or disproven through physical evidence and witness testimony. Intent is a key concept distinguishing the different degrees of murder.
The WHY in a murder trial tends to be irrellevant unless the defense raises it to reduce to manslaughter (heat of passion, etc). The prosecution had so much evidence in this one - video, DNA, witnesses, etc, the case made itself.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:19 AM ^
...motive. I don't believe any state's law requires the prosecution to prove why someone planned to kill someone else (the motive). The prosecution only has to prove that the killer planned* his/her act, i.e., that the act was premeditated.
*I should add that I'm using the word "planned" fairly loosely.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:26 AM ^
Ok, that makes sense. So in essence in the eyes of the law here, one minute before the deed is done Aaron could've said or done some action that proved he was at least thinking "I'm going to kill Odin," and despite there being no discernible motive, premeditation has technically been established, which is enough for 1st degree murder?
April 15th, 2015 at 11:28 AM ^
April 15th, 2015 at 11:52 AM ^
...yes. "Premeditation" doesn't require much planning/thinking ahead - at least to my knowledge. Any wrongful act of killing in Massachusetts that is not spontaneous is likely to be charged as first degree murder.
Prosecutors like to show motive becuase jurys almost inevitably ask themselves why someone would kill someone else. The Casey Anthony trial was a good example of that, because your gut reaction to hearing that a mother killed her child is to ask why a mother would do that. But prosecutors never have to prove motive (as far as I know).
I should add that I haven't been following the trial. MichiganMan47 makes the good point that, at least in Massachusetts, first degree murder can exist because of "extreme atrocity or cruelty" rather than premeditation. You can also get to first degree murder in Massachusetts when a killing takes place while the killer is in the act of committing or attempting to commit a separate crime that is punishable by death or life in prison.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:58 AM ^
I am pretty sure that, at least in the state of Michigan, the idea of premeditation basically is restricted to te idea that you planned the act - say, for example, poisoning someone, laying in wait for them or some means of murder that involves strategy of some sort. I could be wrong, but I believe that why you did it is not strictly relevant at least here.
April 15th, 2015 at 12:05 PM ^
I'd be surprised if any state's law requires a showing of motive. I'm just not 100% sure that none do - and thus my qualified statement.
This is another topic, really, but a trap we fall into when we talk about the law is that we forget there are 50 states worth of unique laws and federal law too. But further discussion of this would be the most boring Mgothread ever.
Louisiana might require a showing of motive, but Louisiana is weird.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:37 AM ^
His true motive was that Loyd apparently knew about his involvement in the OTHER murder he committed the year before--in a drive by of two men over A SPILLED DRINK AT A BAR.
However, such evidence was inadmissible in court for this matter as an alleged prior crime, because its probative value was out weighed by its potential prejudicial effect.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:43 AM ^
@JHendo-
Massachusetts state criminal code establishes that one can be convicted of 1st degree murder for either premeditation OR "extreme cruelty or atrocity" which basically means that the act was committed in a fashion much more extreme/depraved than would have been needed to do the deed. Hernandez was convicted on the latter, likely because of how bullet-riddled Odin Lloyd's body was and numerous other aggravating factors. The jury could have convicted him of 2nd degree had neither of those factors been present.
April 15th, 2015 at 12:32 PM ^
Other actual lawyers have covered this premeditation thing, but I thought I'd also add that when you drive someone to an isolated location where nobody else is around, and you kill them there, premeditation is very easy to establish.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:20 AM ^
Just have to show it was willful or premeditated. Driving him to that industrial lot or wherever it was - that was sufficient for the mens rea.
Should have slipped some actus reus in there though.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:26 AM ^
April 15th, 2015 at 11:10 AM ^
Put him in a cell with Lawrence Phillips.
April 15th, 2015 at 12:03 PM ^
Wonder if they would put that on pay-per view?
April 15th, 2015 at 11:10 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad