Aaron Hernandez trial

[MultiTroll]

The fact that the judge and the prosecutor have a history is no legal basis to recuse her, particularly since the problem might well be the prosecutor. If the standard for recusal was that low, any smart attorney with a case in front of an unfavorable judge would just create a conflict and then demand recusal.

Continue with the completely objective and unbiased posting!

Tell me how that ruling with the texts just went.

[FromWayDowntown]

Tell me how that ruling with the texts just went.

I made a point about the general idea that a judge shouldn't be allowed to stay on a case if she has had past brushes with the prosecutor. I'm not trying to say that anyone in the courtroom is right or wrong, just that you're whining about this judge staying on the case isn't consistent with the law of any jurisdiction. That's all.

I'm not sure how the response to that point involves the judge reconsidering a point and changing her mind about it. What does that have to do with recusing herself from the case?

Frankly, I don't really care if Hernandez is convicted or not.

[MultiTroll]

The texts are a major piece of evidence from a juries point of view.
Were i sitting in the jury box with my unbiased point of view, i would absolutely want the text evidence in.
The fact this judge even tried to suppress it, indeed did suppress it and obviously it's implied the only reason the texts will now allowed in is she was forced to.
She had even blathered "an appeals court will back up my ruling".

Obvious bias.

I don't care that what she did can be loopholed thru the bull bylaws and power trips that judges are able to scheme thru *legal* means.
Just like the OJ stuff in his White Bronco glove box that was inadmissable because of some bull loophole and/or crappy police work.

The prosection most likely wanted to get the text info in on a Friday so the jury could be impressed over the weekend. It's an old courtroom trick used by both prosecution and defenses. Not saying it would make that much of a difference in todays age where, who are we kidding of course the jurors are reading stuff even tho they are not *supposed* to. Still, it jacked with their timing. Oh well, it's gonna be in now.

[FromWayDowntown]

Hmmm. Now the rules of evidence and the rules of criminal procedure, which are intended to ensure the protection of the accused's Cons utional rights, are "bull loopholes?"

Why even bother with trials? Why don't we just convict people upon a su ion that they have committed a crime; after all, we should just consider the worst things about the accused in determining guilt or innocence without regard to the relevance or reliability of that proof.

[JudynTX]

So Judy is the Scheme Team winning so far?
Will it matter with only 1 Pats Moron needed on the jury?

TBH, the state hasn't presented much. And you're right, there's at least one Patriots moron on this jury.

[MultiTroll]

TBH, the state hasn't presented much. And you're right, there's at least one Patriots moron on this jury.

I see where Hernandez girlfriend is seen removing a box in a garbage bag from the basement the next day ala Kardashian coming into OJs house to remove .

I know i know, she had baked some cookies for the church bake sale and was removing the cookie sheets from the house to take over to her aunts for blah blah blah.

Will be interesting to see the spin -if she testifies at all.

[MultiTroll]

3 housekeepers testify 3 guns in the house all the time. Under the mattress, etc.
Right after girlfriend leaves house with garbage bag -poof- no guns.

Yet the skank girlfriend who was granted immunity will probably not testify.
WTF was the purpose of granting her?

[MultiTroll]

TBH, the state hasn't presented much. And you're right, there's at least one Patriots moron on this jury.

Judge Judy and FromWayDowntown,
Where do you put the presentation of the gun casings etc?
Prosecution win or police work botched, defense liarywers were able to cast doubt.

i don't mean from this jurys point of view, it's not gonna matter. They have at least one Pats Moron so even verified videotape of Henandez offing Odin is not gonna matter. I mean from what you two saw, were the bullets definitely from Hernandez gun, tire tracks etc convincing to you?

[Fabbs]

In a case where the murder weapon has yet to be found, that’s a useful way of showing that the man accused of killing someone with a handgun had multiple handguns in his home. And the handguns weren’t in a safe or any other secure location; they were found in various places throughout the home, for example, in a sock drawer and in a pair of pants that had been left on the floor.

Both maids were later asked by Hernandez to sign non-disclosure agreements. They refused, and they were fired
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ernandez-case/

Stay classy Hernandez.

[MultiTroll]

Hmmm. Now the rules of evidence and the rules of criminal procedure, which are intended to ensure the protection of the accused's Cons utional rights, are "bull loopholes?"

Why even bother with trials? Why don't we just convict people upon a su ion that they have committed a crime; after all, we should just consider the worst things about the accused in determining guilt or innocence without regard to the relevance or reliability of that proof.

Should Hernandez shooting Alexander Bradley also be allowed in?
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/potenti...002553227.html
Think maybe it's reliable and relevant?

[FromWayDowntown]

Prior bad acts are generally not admissible because they tend to suggest a decision on a basis other than the facts of the particular case. That stuff doesn't just come in because there's some passing similarity in the acts. There's little doubt that the judge did the right thing in excluding any evidence of the Bradley shooting in her pre-trial rulings; absent some very unusual cir stances, that type of proof virtually never is admissible in a trial, and particularly not in a criminal trial.

It's certainly an interesting argument to suggest that Hernandez has opened the door to the admission of the proof by insisting that he wouldn't shoot a friend. My guess is that Hernandez will argue that it shouldn't come in because it's just a matter of Bradley's word -- Hernandez hasn't (as far as I know) been indicted or charged with a crime in the Bradley incident -- and that such proof would be unreliable and that, in any event, the prejudicial effect of that evidence would substantially outweigh whatever probative value it might have. But there may be merit, particularly under Massachusetts law (which I have never studied) to the idea that a defendant can open the door to this sort of evidence by his choice of a trial strategy.

It's not a slam dunk that it comes in, nor should it be if you believe in the right to due process of law and the Cons utional rights of the accused.

[FromWayDowntown]

Judge Judy and FromWayDowntown,
Where do you put the presentation of the gun casings etc?
Prosecution win or police work botched, defense liarywers were able to cast doubt.

i don't mean from this jurys point of view, it's not gonna matter. They have at least one Pats Moron so even verified videotape of Henandez offing Odin is not gonna matter. I mean from what you two saw, were the bullets definitely from Hernandez gun, tire tracks etc convincing to you?

No idea. Not paying much attention to this trial.

[MultiTroll]

It's not a slam dunk that it comes in, nor should it be if you believe in the right to due process of law and the Cons utional rights of the accused.

I believe in victims rights. I'm well aware of the accused having rights, and in no way shape or form do i think abuses happen only on the defense side.
That having been said, the US Injustice system is woeful when it comes to victims rights.

That the Bradley info should be allowed is a slam dunk in moral terms. Whether or not his defense can slease the system to keep it out, we shall see.

From the article:
"His friend Odin," is how Hernandez's attorney Michael Fee repeatedly described their relationship during January's opening statements in the trial of whether the former New England Patriot killed Lloyd on June 17, 2013. Fee used the term "friend" over a dozen times that day. >end exerpt

His defense is so obviously getting to play the "why would he shoot his friend?" card, the prosecution should absolutely be allowed to bring the Bradley shooting info in. Bradley is suing Hernandez for 100K in Federal court. He chooses not to cooperate with LE in any criminal pursuit of Hernandez.

[FromWayDowntown]

He chooses not to cooperate with LE in any criminal pursuit of Hernandez.

So, basically, we should just be able to take his word for it and that should be good enough.

Nobody has ever fabricated the iden y of an attacker. Ever.

[MultiTroll]

So, basically, we should just be able to take his word for it and that should be good enough.

Nobody has ever fabricated the iden y of an attacker. Ever.

Straw,
The jury should be able to hear the allegations. They can decide how relevant or not they are.
Same as with the texts.

[FromWayDowntown]

So you'd just throw out the Cons ution altogether?

Why not just immediately convict those accused of crimes? It would save the hassles of trials and due process.

[MultiTroll]

So you'd just throw out the Cons ution altogether?

Why not just immediately convict those accused of crimes? It would save the hassles of trials and due process.

Are you one of the sites trolls just looking for hits?
Hey, gotta keep that post count going.

To play your game, Why not just keep ALL evidence out? Make the victims have video combined with audio of the crime, and also require at least 47 witnesses for proof. Anything less then that and the criminal skates, period. Throw out everything else under the Straw umbrella of the accused rights being violated.

[FromWayDowntown]

The victim's rights cannot outweigh the rights of the accused if you believe in due process at all or unless you think that being accused of a crime necessarily means you did it. Our law presumes the innocence of the accused until he or she is proven guilty; what you want is presume the guilt of the accused. Not everyone who is accused of a crime is guilty of that crime. Treating the accused as though they are presumptively guilty doesn't protect anyone's rights.

We diminish rights of the convicted, but that requires proof in a trial of the accused who has been afforded due process.

If you believe otherwise, that's certainly your prerogative, but you might as well admit to thinking cons utional due process has no place in our system of justice.

[Fabbs]

The victim's rights cannot outweigh the rights of the accused if you believe in due process at all or unless you think that being accused of a crime necessarily means you did it. Our law presumes the innocence of the accused until he or she is proven guilty; what you want is presume the guilt of the accused. Not everyone who is accused of a crime is guilty of that crime. Treating the accused as though they are presumptively guilty doesn't protect anyone's rights.

We diminish rights of the convicted, but that requires proof in a trial of the accused who has been afforded due process.

If you believe otherwise, that's certainly your prerogative, but you might as well admit to thinking cons utional due process has no place in our system of justice.

I'll get back to the rest of your straw later, but for now regarding the cons ution:

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy conceded Thursday that the Cons ution is not meant to be interpreted in its original, literal state, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

In a speech at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference in Monterey, Calif., Kennedy asserted that the authors intentionally used general language so that guiding principles could steer lawmakers tackling present-day issues.

“The Cons ution of the United States is a flawed do ent,” he said, pointing to original text allowing for slavery. “The framers were wise enough to know that they could not foresee the injustices” of the future.

[Fabbs]

The Criminal Injustice System
The following comparison of the effects of a crime on a criminal and on his victim are based on a chart published in The Daily Oklahoman and prepared by Oklahoma’s attorney general, Mike Turpin.
THE CRIMINAL
Has a choice—to commit crime or not.
If he commits the crime, he may (1)*be caught and arrested
(possibility, about one in five in the United States) (2)*not be
caught and probably continue a life of crime.
Arrest
1. Must be informed of his rights.
2. If injured while committing the crime or during his arrest,
he receives immediate medical attention.
3. Is provided with a lawyer if unable to afford one.
4. May be released on bail or own recognizance.
Pretrial
1. Is provided food and accommodation.
2. Books, TV, and recreation available.
3. Medical facilities, including drug and alcohol counseling,
are made available.
Trial
1. Is provided with state-appointed attorney.
2. Can plea bargain to obtain lesser sentence.
3. Can delay the trial and change its venue.
4. Can use various maneuvers to suppress evidence or get
acquittal.
5. If convicted (only 3 percent of crimes result in a
conviction), he can appeal.
Sentencing
1. May not go to prison—there are numerous alternatives.
Sentence
1. If sent to prison, has free food and accommodation again.
2. Has access to all kinds of medical and psychological
treatment at state expense.
3. Can improve education and develop job skills.
4. Numerous rehabilitation programs available.
5. With good conduct and work, can get early release.
After Release
1. Aid programs and loans available.
End Result
Large proportion return to a life of crime.
THE VICTIM
Has no choice—involuntary victim of crime.
Arrest
1. If injured, pays own medical and ambulance bills. Perhaps
carries psychological consequences for life.
2. Is responsible for replacing own property losses.
3. Is responsible for economic problems resulting from crime.
4. Loses time in cooperating with law-enforcement agencies.
5. Is generally not informed of progress of case.
Pretrial
1. Must arrange for and pay for own transport to court and
police offices. Work time and perhaps wages are lost.
2. Is still kept in the dark on case progress.
Trial
1. Again must arrange for and pay for transport and parking.
2. Must pay baby-sitter or other home costs.
3. Must recount the crime and be subjected to rigorous
cross-examination. He is just another piece of evidence.
4. The prosecuting attorney represents the state, not the
victim. Usually no res ution is demanded for the victim.
5. Has no right of appeal, even if criminal is released.
Sentencing
1. Has no say in decision, pleas, or sentencing.
2. Is often not even called for the sentencing.
After Release
1. Is often dissatisfied with criminal “justice” system.
2. Is in fear of released criminal(s) and retaliation.
3. Trauma may continue for rest of his/her life.
End Result
No longer respects a system that bends over backward to respect
the rights of the criminal but that ignores the needs of the
victim.

[FromWayDowntown]

So, if you're accused of a crime, are you presumptively guilty or presumptively innocent?

Honest question.

[Fabbs]

So, if you're accused of a crime, are you presumptively guilty or presumptively innocent?

Honest question.

I myself assume neither guilt nor innocence.
From there the reasonable and fair thing is to have as much information, ie *evidence* as possible.

Very familiar with The Court of Last Resort, a group including the author of all the Perry Masons, Erle Stanley Gardner.
Which btw if you watch many Perrys, one quickly finds out often the accused and seemingly guilty are innocent.
Modern version would be The Innocence Project.
So ya i assume on neither side.

[Fabbs]

The victim's rights cannot outweigh the rights of the accused if you believe in due process at all or unless you think that being accused of a crime necessarily means you did it. Our law presumes the innocence of the accused until he or she is proven guilty; what you want is presume the guilt of the accused. Not everyone who is accused of a crime is guilty of that crime. Treating the accused as though they are presumptively guilty doesn't protect anyone's rights.

We diminish rights of the convicted, but that requires proof in a trial of the accused who has been afforded due process.

If you believe otherwise, that's certainly your prerogative, but you might as well admit to thinking cons utional due process has no place in our system of justice.

Question for you regarding due process and the cons ution.
Honest question.

Sicko pedophile rapes and tortures infants and children. Why stop there, throw in adults.
He is arrested with tons of evidence against him, but the cop does not read his Miranda rights properly.
The entire charges are dropped because of this technicality.

He was not afforded *due process* and his *kons ushunal rights* were *violated*.

Did the system work?
b. How about the victim(s)?

[FromWayDowntown]

You can claim to presume nothing, but our law is absolutely founded on the presumption of innocence and the imposition of the burden upon the state to prove guilt. So, ultimately, your complaints here are wholly without any legal foundation. You can complain about the manner in which American criminal cases are tried, but people who are far smarter than you or me have developed that standard to protect the innocent -- as Benjamin Franklin stated explained, "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

In that regard, The Innocence Project is a perfect example of why your complaints about evidence in the Hernandez case should be disregarded.

That group exonerates plenty of people based upon - among other things - the admission of unreliable evidence in the form of things like other bad acts by the accused. The Innocence Project's lawyers show, frequently, that juries were provided with information that was inflammatory and highly prejudicial to the accused and that the outcome of the trial is questionable (if not entirely erroneous) because of the likelihood that the jury convicted on an improper basis. The Innocence Project is the walking, talking proof that we shouldn't just let anything in that might incriminate the accused and let the jury sort it out; the Innocence Project absolutely insists (as it should) that the accused should be presumed innocent and that the accused should be convicted only upon the State introducing proof go guilt beyond any reasonable doubt in a trial in which the accused Cons utional rights have been vigorously protected.

[FromWayDowntown]

Question for you regarding due process and the cons ution.
Honest question.

Sicko pedophile rapes and tortures infants and children. Why stop there, throw in adults.
He is arrested with tons of evidence against him, but the cop does not read his Miranda rights properly.
The entire charges are dropped because of this technicality.

He was not afforded *due process* and his *kons ushunal rights* were *violated*.

Did the system work?
b. How about the victim(s)?

Miranda is only applicable to confessions by the accused; if the only evidence against the accused is a confession given without notice of his Miranda rights (a cir stance in which the State's proof would be iffy, regardless) then yes.

But in your hypothetical, there is tons of evidence against him (presumably including the testimony of those he attacked), so the fact that a confession might be tainted isn't likely to provide a basis for dropping the case.