Hey, there! Log in / Register
Hernandez convicted of first-degree murder
By adamg on Wed, 04/15/2015 - 11:02am
WCVB reports the jury in the Odin Lloyd murder case reached a verdict today.
The verdict means an automatic sentence of life without possibility of parole, although the Supreme Judicial Court will review it. He also faces two murder charges in Boston for the death of two men in the South End in 2012.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Good bye
Aaron.
Not so fast
Our
risingstar football player has two more murder trials to go, in Boston, for allegedly killing two guys after they bumped into him in a nightclub. And there are two accomplices in this murder to be tried. Plenty of fodder the media can keep wasting time on.True enough. My heart breaks for
Odin Lloyds mother who had to sit in the courtroom and relive her grief every day. She was even warned by the judge not to cry in court and now she will have no closure with another trial. Does Justice have any meaning to a family that has gone through this type of experience? Her son is dead and this clown will be on TV for another two years.
Much to the displeasure of
Much to the displeasure of the judge
Surprised
Honestly surprised with this verdict, just thought there were too many dead ends and highly disputable evidence that I didn't think he'd end up getting the worst possible punishment
Ditto
I was not convinced with the evidence presented that Hernandez was guilty. There were too many loose ends that the Prosecutor was not able to tie. Prosecution left it up to the jurors to make their own assumptions of what actually occurred. I would agree he was at the murder scene but to convict him without any hard evidence that he pulled the trigger is unjust I believe considering there were two other guys present.
If all three people were working in concert....
... to kill the victim, does it matter who pulled the trigger?
Not legally. It's called the
Not legally. It's called the "joint venture" theory.
So someone else killed those
So someone else killed those men?
Love the look
on Hernandez' face as the verdict was read. It was a combination of "let's go with the appeal" and "Cedar Junction just became Hernandez Town".
Now if only the SJC
would respect the verdict that 12 men and women on the jury agreed to after deliberating, and not insist on this idiotic "automatic appeal" of the case.
And they could do everyone a big favor by also recinding the equally idotic "names and addresses of jurors are public information available to anyone who wants it" ruling.
You mean the SJC should
You mean the SJC should decline to follow the law of the Commonwealth? What did your state rep say when you asked him or her to change the law?
Not up to the SJC
The automatic appeal is codified in Massachusetts statutes as G.L. c. 278 § 33E and would require new legislation to alter.
Sure
Because 12 people have never gotten together in a committee before and needed to have their decisions double-checked at all.
So, what was your opinion on the Boston2024 bid again?
Perhaps. But at least have
a legitimate reason for the SJC to double check that decision (as in exculpatory evidence that could not have been considered during the original trial). And the mere fact he was found guilty is not enough to justify an automatic review.
Plus, if it's so necessary to verify that a mistake was not made in finding a person guilty, then why isn't the SJC required to review not guilty verdicts as well? Oh, because we (wrongly) presume the jury automatically made the right decision in not convicting a person, but (wrongly) presume the jury may have made a bad decsion to convict somebody.
Damn that constitution
What a pain.
Again I ask:
What was your state rep's response when you asked them to introduce legislation to change the law?
Incorrect
The legitimate reason is that we don't have any intention of jailing people until they die when they aren't properly found guilty. Therefore, if that review is literally based *merely* on the fact that he was found guilty, then it should be no problem for you to accept that we review it since the review will not find anything done wrong and he'll stay in jail forever which is all of our preferred outcome for someone whose review finds nothing improper done and was found to be guilty.
They aren't required to review not guilty verdicts because the onus was on the prosecutor, in our names, to produce so compelling a case that we can feel comfortable putting the person away for the rest of their life based on the combined decision of 12 people. If that burden can't be met, then there's nothing for the SJC to review. It's like saying "but why don't we talk about the god that atheists DO believe in?".
And finally, the review isn't one of whether the jury rightly or wrongly determined guilt. It's about whether the process that led them to that decision was frought with any errors or not. I could easily convince 12 random people you killed your mother if I fabricated the evidence and paid for witnesses. However, upon review, if it turns out my evidence was completely faulty then were those 12 people wrong to believe my well-crafted tale? No, they correctly found your guilt based on what was presented to them. However, the process failed them as much as it did you in finding you guilty since everything presented them was a lie. Should you still rot in jail forever or wouldn't you have preferred the SJC examine the case to even have the chance to determine my evidence was fraudulent.
So much wrong with this comment
So I'll just pick the lowest hanging fruit.
The SJC doesn't review not guilty verdicts because it is forbidden from doing so by a pesky old document called the United States Constitution, the Fifth Amendment to which quite explicitly prohibits trying a suspect for a crime he has already been acquitted of. Jury acquittals are final; there is no such provision for convictions.
To Be Clear
The appellate process is about whether the proceedings themselves were fair. In essence it's about whether the judge and prosecutor followed the rules of court (defense lawyers are nominally beholden to those rules but face no sanctions for violating them). If it were about whether the jury made the right decision, you'd have the SJC looking at acquittals, which they don't.
Again, why don't we apply those same
standards of assuring fairness in cases where the defendant is found not guilty? And why do we even need to presume that the proceedings may not have been fair in the absense of any evidence to support that claim in the first place?
Well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy
For the most part if the prosecution flubs it so bad that the jury gets the "wrong decision", you have to start questioning the case that was brought forth in the first place. You can't convict someone because of what you feel, or what you think.
Also fair to remember, the Court system is designed to protect the innocent from false accusations from the state, government, and other citizens. While we have gone much more towards making it a penal institution, it still has checks for good reason.
I guess I get what you're getting at; what if the courts and prosecutors just let some smuck off. But, innocent till proven guilty and in a case like that why would they even end up in court?
I'm sure
I'll make no friends with this post but...
Oh pooor Shayanna Jenkins crying. Boo-fucking-ho . She's more upset that her fiancee is going to jail for murdering her sisters boyfriend? She has no heart or sympathy for her sister at all.
I really wish they could go after her. I'm sorry, but I think she only told enough on the stand to fulfill her obligation so she doesn't get charged herself. Kinda wish she was going to jail because IMHO I think she lied through her teeth on the stand to protect 'her man'
what a piece of work she is...
Tears of Relief
Maybe she's glad that she didn't marry him already?
nah
I think she's stupid enough to continue with him.
Every time I heard her on the trial, I kept thinking about those ads the T has on the subway that have a handcuffed girl in them and say "you hold his gun, you do the time". Its an ad telling women not to cover up crimes for their man.
I think
I think she is more upset her short life of semi-fame has come to an end.
Tears of missing her gravy train
on the coat tails of her cheating baby daddy thug. All that money spent on his defense and he lost. Money she won't see via child support.
Not so sure about that
If he has any assets, and she's raising their kid, she'll get hers. No problem.
Those assets will be seized
Those assets will be seized if there's a civil case by the families, and not just Odin Lloyd's - there are two more victims here - which is all but assured. Assets to include that nice house in Attleboro, if it's in his name and not hers. She'd better have a backup plan, work on another pro athlete baby daddy who isn't a criminal this time.
I'm not going to make any friends with this...
But everything you stated was obvious and well known to anyone who followed even parts of the trial. Not exactly a hot take.
but
You never know who's going to read and reply to posts on here. *shrug* I've said things before where I thought it was the consensus, but got attacked anyways. So I'm err on the side of caution.
It wasn't intented top be a 'hot take' at all.
Hi my new pal!
I couldn't agree more. She should be locked up with her stupid ass, lying for that scum, disposing of evidence, being a total traitor to her family. Not to mention how despicable it is that she is actually someone's mother. What is she going to teach her daughter, to stand by her man? Ugh. I'm just glad the justice system actually worked today and (barring a successful appeal which I don't see happening) hopefully, that egotistical, self-serving scumbag will live the rest of his days in misery.
RIP Odin Lloyd, and Godspeed to your family.
Shayanna Jenkins on the stand
Was it just me or did everyone else make the McKayla Maroney face when Shayanna was on the stand talking about how her bethrothed asked her to remove a box from their house? She threw some clothes on top of it, put it in the car, drove around and put the box in a dumpster somewhere (but she's not sure where).
Ok, that's enough for a side eye but I went full on McKayla when Ms. Jenkins testified that she knew intuitively not to look in the box before getting rid of it.
I completely believe she did not look in the box. I also believe she knew exactly what was in that box. Thus the side eye.
She Also Knows
EXACTLY where she dumped that box. I have no sympathy for her.
lol
That side eye though! I agree with you. Although she knew what it was, women living certain lifestyles with certain types of men learn early on not to ask questions and not to be nosy because the less they know, there's nothing to snitch about and they don't technically have to lie to police or anyone else. When they say "I don't know," they really don't know. Even though deep down, they know. Very sad, but she made her choice and that's on her. I hope she can learn to at least teach her daughter better but I doubt it since she apparently doesn't know herself.
I thought
the exact same thing. And I don't know how many dumpsters she visits, but I sure would remember where I might have chucked something in a dumpster.
This should be no surprise
This should be no surprise though. She admitted on the stand that she adopted a "look the other way" policy with him for everything he does, which probably extends beyond infidelity. This served her well, at least for a few years. If he follows some stupid "respect" code, he's clearly made her his ride or die bitch. She sees herself as his Carmella to her Tony.
wow
wrongfully convicted, hopefully gets out on appeal
wow
rightfully convicted, hopefully his appeal fails.
What are you basing that
What are you basing that conclusion on?
also
anybody that judges or doesnt understand a mans fiance crying as he gets a life sentence is a god damned moron
seriously.
Thanks, but I'll continue to
Thanks, but I'll continue to judge someone who was happy to marry a serial murderer and helped cover up the murder of her sister's boyfriend.
rare to have somebody thats
rare to have somebody thats proud to be a moron
oh I do understand
Oh I do understand, but you'd think she could have had more sympathy for her own flesh in blood. She's trash, plain and simple. Sorry I have no sympathy for her, she clearly lied to cover up for him, rather than side with her own family. Shows where her mentality and loyalty is.
But thanks for calling me a moron. hello pot, it's kettle... who's the moron sticking up for a convicted murder?
Moron right here
This is a woman who broke up with him and then took him back on the condition that she accept the fact that he would be with other women. If that doesn't scream "I'll do anything to be with this man who just signed a big contract with the Patriots!" I don't know what does.
opportunist
is the word that comes to mind when describing her. We'll see if she sticks by him thru the other two trials.. maybe swirls is right, she won't.
Wow, is this Brandon Spikes?
How's Buffalo? Looking forward to the Bills finishing 8-8 and missing the playoffs again?
Don't be an idiot
No chance the Bills win more than 6 games.
Wow, is this Brandon Spikes?
Bills go 8-8.
This is an informative
This is an informative article: "Relieved Aaron Hernandez trial jurors said they were shocked by defense admission he was at murder scene."
I was wondering what the hell they were doing making that admission in closing statements myself. I assumed it was some sort of Hail Mary, last-ditch effort at saving their case. As in, the defense team realized after the prosecution presented their case that they were insulting the jury's intelligence by not even admitting to Hernandez being present at the scene of the crime, so just out with it -- but with a tenuous-but-plausible excuse for his presence -- so the jury would hopefully move on to looking at the rest of the evidence.
Looks like it didn't work.
Now, here's a cynical theory for the appeal: It's my understanding that stuff presented by either side in opening or closing arguments, even if it sounds like a "fact" cannot be used as actual factual evidence. Only facts properly entered through the trial process, attested and cross-examined, can be used by the jury as "evidence"; openings and closings are just rhetoric, attempts at persuasive speechifying. So if the defense dropped this bombshell into the closing argument, and the jurors are now publicly admitting they treated it, in some way, as a fact, and it affected their deliberations, could that not be used as some kind of reversible error in the appeal argument? Tiny, seemingly insignificant defects in the jury process, such as a single juror not revealing some tenuous bias during voir dire, have been used to order whole new trials before, so I wonder if that's what's going on here.
Thank God!
I was worried we'd have a hung jury or another OJ verdict.
Hernandez
is a textbook psychopath. And the NHL knew he was big trouble waiting to happen.
That's why they pawned him
That's why they pawned him off on the NFL.
lol
I meant NFL. But there are NHL psychopaths,too.
And they carry sticks.
And they carry sticks.