Canadian Bills Fan Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 ones claiming he was in the car and was told after the fact. So he couldn't see out the car to see who pulled the trigger and didn't see who came back in the car holding a gun? CBF
NoSaint Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 So he couldn't see out the car to see who pulled the trigger and didn't see who came back in the car holding a gun? CBF i havent dug through dozens of filings or read them personally, but it sounds like hes playing the "i didnt have anything to do with it, but they told me they did it" card. which could be true... or not.... but based on the explanations of local law that ive heard, it doesnt sound like it matters much who pulled the trigger at this point though. simply placing AH at the scene and as the planner of the event can suffice to put him away on the charges it sounded like in the original discussions.
JohnC Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 I think there may also be a co-conspirator exception to hearsay which could apply to all these statements. I am a lawyer, but not a criminal lawyer, so I'm not too familiar with that exception (and can't recall much about it from law school). I think you can basically use co-conspirators' statements against each other if it's part of carrying out the conspiracy. The statements by AH's associates are probably going to be challenged by his attorney. But when you broadly look at this case the statements are for sure important but not essential. Assuming for the sake of argument that one of the associates stayed in the car and didn't escort the victim to the pee line. What eventually is said by one or two of the associates isn't as important as the fact that three people got out of the car, shots were fired (ammo retrieved) and then two people returned to the car without the victim. What was the demeanor of all three associates after the shooting? There is no indication that anyone panicked. There were no arguments over what was done. They all returned together to the house of AH. The two associates then left town until they were taken into custody by the authorities. There is no doubt that the two associates of AH are going to turn on AH. But regardless of who pulled the trigger in the eyes of the law they are all just as guilty. Will the authorities give a break to AH hoodlum buddies in this assassination case for their cooperation? Probably so. But because of the overwhelming evidence and the cold blooded nature of the killing it won't really mean much from a senstencing standpoint.
eball Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 How can what Wallace supposedly said to Ortiz not be deemed hearsay at this point? I may have misunderstood...I thought it was what AH said to him.
BringBackFergy Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 I may have misunderstood...I thought it was what AH said to him. I understood it was what AH told Wallace (first hearsay) which Wallace then told to Ortiz (second hearsay)
eball Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 I understood it was what AH told Wallace (first hearsay) which Wallace then told to Ortiz (second hearsay) Ok, well in that case if Wallace is testifying the AH statement is not hearsay (party admission) but if Ortiz is testifying about what Wallace told him then that is hearsay (because they can call Wallace to testify directly). Now, who are Wallace and Ortiz?
BringBackFergy Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 Ok, well in that case if Wallace is testifying the AH statement is not hearsay (party admission) but if Ortiz is testifying about what Wallace told him then that is hearsay (because they can call Wallace to testify directly). Now, who are Wallace and Ortiz? *Head spinning* It depends who they call as a witness in the AH trial...if they call Wallace to testify, then the witness is in the courtroom, as is the declarant (AH) as a party opponent...so that's good. But if they don't call Wallace as a witness and, instead, rely on Ortiz as the witness, then I believe it is hearsay since AH's attys do not have the opportunity to x-examine Wallace. Obviously, if there is a cooperation agreement or any form of immunity, both Wallace and Ortiz will testify in Court and the statements will (most likely) come in because both witnesses will be subject to cross exam. On another note...who's on first?
stevewin Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 If they were all together when Lloyd was shot, why would AH need to admit that he was the shooter? Wouldn't they already know? CBF I was thinking along the same lines. You are with two of your friends and another guy in a car in the early morning. The three get out, shots are fired, and two come back in. Then you go back to the house - retrieve a gun from under the sat - sleep til the afternoon - go a round town a bit, rent a car, hang out at some random apartment. The subject of who shot the guy you left on the side of the road is never brought up when you're all together and not even mentioned until the drive home to Bristol? WTF "Oh yeah - I was meaning to ask you and keep forgetting - you know that guy we were driiving around with last night, you guys got out and I thought I heard gunshots, then he didn't come back in the car. What was up with that?" On a different subject - related to the other double murder and the rental car - how do you rent a car and not return it for a year? How does the rental company never come after you for the car?
Mr. WEO Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 It's double hearsay - What AH told Wallace is an admission of a party opponent (meaning it falls outside the hearsay rule because AH is in Court to challenge the statement with his attorneys - i.e. the witness is available in court). Hearsay is an out of court statement made by the declarant offered to prove the truth of the matter in that statement. Since AH is in Court, that statement can be brought in but subject to cross examination. As far as the statement by Wallace to Ortiz - that would be hearsay if offered by Ortiz if AH is not tried in the same proceeding. It may fall under a different exception to the hearsay rule if AH is not involved in the same trial (i.e. if he is not a party opponent). For instance, you could get Wallace's statement in as an exception for motive, present sense impression, etc. It's not a cut and dry issue. But Wallace didn't admit this to authorities. Ortiz is alleging that Wallace told him that AH admiited to the shooting.
BillsWatch Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 Evidently Browns RB has foot in mouth disease on matter: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-football/22709585/browns-rb-dion-lewis-says-aaron-hernandezs-homie-snitched-on-him
Mr. WEO Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 *Head spinning* It depends who they call as a witness in the AH trial...if they call Wallace to testify, then the witness is in the courtroom, as is the declarant (AH) as a party opponent...so that's good. But if they don't call Wallace as a witness and, instead, rely on Ortiz as the witness, then I believe it is hearsay since AH's attys do not have the opportunity to x-examine Wallace. Obviously, if there is a cooperation agreement or any form of immunity, both Wallace and Ortiz will testify in Court and the statements will (most likely) come in because both witnesses will be subject to cross exam. On another note...who's on first? This is how I understood it. It's hearsay unless Wallace makes this claim in court.
Mr. WEO Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 Unless they were all co-conspirators--then I think maybe you can get it in through Ortiz. Only if Ortiz testifies and can be cross examined.
The Wiz Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 Unless they were all co-conspirators--then I think maybe you can get it in through Ortiz. Only if Ortiz testifies and can be cross examined. He likely would be cross examined. From the way it sounds it would be hearsay if AH didn't say it and Ortiz didn't see it.
Alaska Darin Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 most prisons are privately run and for profit. It is all about making money, they could give a damn about rehabilitation In order for rehab to work, people in prison have to want to change. The percentage of people in prison who want to change isn't high. That's not saying there aren't significant problems with the prison "system" but if you want to fix prisons, you have to start BEFORE people end up in the klink. That's not an easy thing to do, obviously.
Mr. WEO Posted July 11, 2013 Posted July 11, 2013 He likely would be cross examined. From the way it sounds it would be hearsay if AH didn't say it and Ortiz didn't see it. No, that would make it also a lie.
BringBackFergy Posted July 11, 2013 Posted July 11, 2013 http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/9468656/aaron-hernandez-cohort-police-record-drug-abuse-report-says Bad headline "Carlos Ortiz has drugs record". When you read the first few paragraphs of the article, Ortiz does not have any convictions for "drugs" (sale, distribution, possession, etc). Yes, he allegedly did drugs while on probation, but no convictions for drugs. These reporters need to choose their headlines better; then again, sensationalism trumps accuracy in this day and age.
bowery4 Posted July 12, 2013 Posted July 12, 2013 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/07/12/ortiz-statement-to-police-raises-several-hearsay-questions/ More on hearsay with a definite maybe.
ganesh Posted July 12, 2013 Posted July 12, 2013 Huh?? Nothing? They had texts from the victim (to his sister which essentially were a premonition of what would be his fate) and the perp (calling in his hit crew and luring in his victim), surveillance video of the perp in his house holding a gun before the crime, they had an eyewitness of the victim getting into a car rented by AH and video of AH driving the car and the car entering the murder scene and video of AH and others brandishing weapons in his house after the murder. They have shell casings (matching those at the murder scene) found in the rental car by a car rental employee who was offered a piece of blue Bubblicious gum upon AH's return of the car. All of this was before the apartment was searched (which happened the day he was arrested). And you think he did "a good job of hiding the evidence and cleaning it up" to that point? All the stuff quoted above have no indication that it was Hernandez who killed Lloyd...Just saying. You mean other than: - the keys in the victim's pocket that belong to a car rented in Hernandez's name - the bullet casing under the seat of said rental car - the surveillance video from the neighborhood that Lloyd was picked up from - the cell phone records with text messages placing Hernandez and Lloyd together the night of the murder - the surveillance video from Hernandez's security system that shows him entering the house 3 minutes after gunshots were heard etc. Please tell me which one of the item from your list indicates that Hernandez committed a crime...Renting a car in which four people (including the victim) traveled, cell phone records (I don't think Hernandez has denied that he was with Lloyd), surveillance video (coincidence). I am pretty sure Hernandez had a role (if not commited the murder), but none of what you list will prove anything in the court of law.
JohnC Posted July 12, 2013 Posted July 12, 2013 All the stuff quoted above have no indication that it was Hernandez who killed Lloyd...Just saying. Please tell me which one of the item from your list indicates that Hernandez committed a crime...Renting a car in which four people (including the victim) traveled, cell phone records (I don't think Hernandez has denied that he was with Lloyd), surveillance video (coincidence). I am pretty sure Hernandez had a role (if not commited the murder), but none of what you list will prove anything in the court of law. Are you aware that you don't have to be the person who pulled the trigger to be charged with murder? Much of the evidence you cited is damning. Add to that the clothes that were found in his apartment that he was wearing on the night of the assassination is also very damaging to his claim of innocense. Even if this is mostly a circumstantial case the mountain of evidence is so overwhelming that he can't offer too many plausible explanations to help his cause. The evidence you cited is not taken in the context of each piece of evidence on its own but it is taken in the context of the totality of it. To me it seems very overwhelming on the side of the prosecution.
BringBackFergy Posted July 12, 2013 Posted July 12, 2013 http://profootballta...rsay-questions/ More on hearsay with a definite maybe. JR in Pittsburgh is right on - Judge JR???
Recommended Posts