stevestojan Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 Read through it too fast and didn't read the name...assumed he was talking about Hernandez. I just a dumb civilian, is it possible that the defense did this to give AH a reason for appeal? Purposely "admit fault" so he could appeal with a new defense team? I'd hope there's rules against that.
Beerball Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 Purposely "admit fault" so he could appeal with a new defense team? I'd hope there's rules against that. No, Hernandez "fires" this team and another files an appeal. They claim incompetence and they have the jurors own words to back up their claim.
ALF Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 The more I read and think about it, it's crazy that the defense admitted that he was present for the crime. To believe that he was there, but didn't participate in any way defies common sense. AH was the star athlete with millions of dollars. Everything I've seen indicates that he was the leader among his group of friends, the "alpha dog" or whatever you want to call it. He gave the instructions, paid for everything, and directed where they went and when. For him to claim that he was just an innocent bystander (who subsequently took everyone back to his house and then smashed his own security tapes and cell phone) is just plan crazy. I agree, OJ had the best lawyers money could buy , these lawyers were something else.
SectionC3 Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 No, Hernandez "fires" this team and another files an appeal. They claim incompetence and they have the jurors own words to back up their claim. He should have a different appellate attorney. It's a different specialty, and it allows Hernandez to make the ineffective assistance of counsel contention on appeal. The jurors' words will not be material here. Read one of my recent posts for explanation. I'll add here that it would be a little odd for Hernandez to contend on appeal that trial counsel was ineffective and then have the same attys defend him in the other murder case, but that's how it goes.
BarleyNY Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 I agree, OJ had the best lawyers money could buy , these lawyers were something else. He did. A buddy of mine who was a lawyer (before getting sick of it and changing careers) had read Cochran's book. It had defense tactics for when there really was no legitimate defense. One of them was to play the racism card, which Cochran did perfectly in the OJ case. From jury selection all the way through final arguements. The lengthy sequestration due to the prolonged trial and threat of having to go through it longer if a guilty verdict was returned was brilliant. Add in some semi-competent prosecution, a semi-competent judge and the already racially tense LA area and OJ bought himself a little freedom before he screwed up again. The judge, prosecution, jury, general environment and lack of any race/socioeconomic/religion card to play made this a totally different situation than OJ's. The burden of proof seemed about equivalent though.
Mr. WEO Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 (edited) Purposely "admit fault" so he could appeal with a new defense team? I'd hope there's rules against that. No, Hernandez "fires" this team and another files an appeal. They claim incompetence and they have the jurors own words to back up their claim. There's no question that his lawyers told him what they were going to say in the closing. There also should be no question the jury already, based on the evidence they knew (his DNA on a bullet casing in his rented car, his DNA on a blunt found at the scene, etc.), placed Hernandez at the scene. There shock was more likely "wow, why would he concede that now?" I don't see how he appeals based on ineffectual counsel. Maybe he can appeal on the grounds of his horrible job at covering up his obvious crime. Edited April 16, 2015 by Mr. WEO
NoSaint Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 (edited) There's no question that his lawyers told him what they were going to say in the closing. There also should be no question the jury already, based on the evidence they knew (his DNA on a bullet casing in his rented car, his DNA on a blunt found at the scene, etc.), placed Hernandez at the scene. There shock was more likely "wow, why would he concede that now?" I don't see how he appeals based on ineffectual counsel. Maybe he can appeal on the grounds of his horrible job at covering up his obvious crime. i believe its an automatic appeal due to the life sentence. it may not be a "good" grounds for appeal, but it may end up being his best. essentially his team will have to throw something at the wall (again) and hope any of it sticks. Edited April 16, 2015 by NoSaint
Mr. WEO Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 i believe its an automatic appeal due to the life sentence. it may not be a "good" grounds for appeal, but it may end up being his best. essentially his team will have to throw something at the wall (again) and hope any of it sticks. It seems clear his team conceded that he was there because they knew the evidence put him there--their only defense at that point was to say he didn't pull the trigger, so they admitted the obvious, that he was at the murder.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 His defense may have screwed up royally. Although you never know. The jurors all said that they were shocked in the closing arguments of the defense when AH's (which stands for ****) attorney said that he was at the murder scene and witnessed the murder. There had never been any testimony to that. It's actually more shocking that they were shocked by it, but they held a joint press conference all seemed to agree. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/04/15/jurors-were-shocked-by-concession-that-hernandez-was-at-scene-of-murder/ I'm not sure what you mean by "never any testimony to that". There was a ton of testimony from the prosecution linking Hernandez to the murder scene. Most legal experts seem to feel the defense was not conceding very much.
thebandit27 Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 It seems clear his team conceded that he was there because they knew the evidence put him there--their only defense at that point was to say he didn't pull the trigger, so they admitted the obvious, that he was at the murder. Would it have possibly been a better defense tactic to challenge the legitimacy of the evidence collection procedure(s) and overall investigative tactics rather than simply concede that he was at the crime scene? At least by using that approach they would have left it up to the jury to conclude that he was present. Probably wouldn't have changed anything, but concocting a seemingly unfounded theory out of thin air that one of his buddies got drugged up and pulled a gun, shot Lloyd, then got back into a car with Hernandez and spent the night at his place with his family borders on dumb (or intentionally inept).
NoSaint Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 (edited) Would it have possibly been a better defense tactic to challenge the legitimacy of the evidence collection procedure(s) and overall investigative tactics rather than simply concede that he was at the crime scene? At least by using that approach they would have left it up to the jury to conclude that he was present. Probably wouldn't have changed anything, but concocting a seemingly unfounded theory out of thin air that one of his buddies got drugged up and pulled a gun, shot Lloyd, then got back into a car with Hernandez and spent the night at his place with his family borders on dumb (or intentionally inept). if the evidence was properly collected and presented well.... it leaves the options to the defense as "yea, but do you really trust the police" vs "yea, he was there but he wanted no part of it" neither great options, and i suspect they did it with the jury selection and mood in the court room in mind. Edited April 16, 2015 by NoSaint
thebandit27 Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 if the evidence was properly collected and presented well.... it leaves the options to the defense as "yea, but do you really trust the police" vs "yea, he was there but he wanted no part of it" neither great options, and i suspect they did it with the jury selection and mood in the court room in mind. Hmmmm...okay, gotcha. I was just curious. I do my best to understand the law, but I'm hardly a lawyer.
southtampacane Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 His defense may have screwed up royally. Although you never know. The jurors all said that they were shocked in the closing arguments of the defense when AH's (which stands for ****) attorney said that he was at the murder scene and witnessed the murder. There had never been any testimony to that. It's actually more shocking that they were shocked by it, but they held a joint press conference all seemed to agree. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/04/15/jurors-were-shocked-by-concession-that-hernandez-was-at-scene-of-murder/ why is it more shocking that they were shocked by it? Who here was anticipating this kind of bombshell in a closing argument? It was clearly a poorly designed hail mary by the defense to avoid the rules of evidence, but it really backfired. But it was shocking that they tried it. Then again, I don't spend much time watching or following murder trials.
Mr. WEO Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 Would it have possibly been a better defense tactic to challenge the legitimacy of the evidence collection procedure(s) and overall investigative tactics rather than simply concede that he was at the crime scene? At least by using that approach they would have left it up to the jury to conclude that he was present. Probably wouldn't have changed anything, but concocting a seemingly unfounded theory out of thin air that one of his buddies got drugged up and pulled a gun, shot Lloyd, then got back into a car with Hernandez and spent the night at his place with his family borders on dumb (or intentionally inept). Not nearly inept as the "execution" of this crime. The overwhelmingly guilty client left little for his legal team to work with. Any weakness in the chain of evidence would have been exploited by them. It wasn't because there was no weakness there. This is the best they could do, no doubt. He can't win an appeal.
A Dog Named Kelso Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 Would it have possibly been a better defense tactic to challenge the legitimacy of the evidence collection procedure(s) and overall investigative tactics rather than simply concede that he was at the crime scene? At least by using that approach they would have left it up to the jury to conclude that he was present. From what I understand this is exactly what they did ... for weeks that debated the minutia of every piece of evidence placing him at the scene. Unfortunately , they lost everyone of those battles.
Canadian Bills Fan Posted April 16, 2015 Author Posted April 16, 2015 beating murder raps: Bills: 1-0 Pats: 0-1 You're a day too late CBF
papazoid Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 You're a day too late CBF oh darn...only looked at this page.....apologies....
Canadian Bills Fan Posted April 16, 2015 Author Posted April 16, 2015 oh darn...only looked at this page.....apologies.... No worries. Its the thought that counts CBF
Fan in Chicago Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 New indictment against Hernandez. Didn't see it posted yet. "Aaron Hernandez was accused of shooting former right-hand man Alexander Bradley in the face in February 2013, but he never faced any criminal charges -- until now. Prosecutors announced an indictment Monday accusing Hernandez of shooting Bradley and leaving him to die in an industrial park near Riviera Beach, Florida. Bradley is believed to be a witness to the homicides of Daniel de Abreu and Safiro Furtado, and prosecutors say Bradley was shot by Hernandez after he made a remark about the double murder."
Recommended Posts