Jury question actually could be good for Aaron Hernandez

AP

Jurors spent a day deliberating the fate of former Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez. Sure, his fate already was sealed with a prior conviction for the shooting death of Odin Lloyd in June 2013. But that case is still under appeal, and a conviction for the shooting deaths of Daniel de Abreu and Safiro Furtado in July 2012 would make it more likely that he’ll never be released from prison.

As noted on Thursday, Hernandez has a chance to be acquitted given the high standard that applies in criminal cases, and in light of the fact that the prosecution’s case hinges on the testimony of Alexander Bradley, an admitted drug dealer who says Hernandez shot into the car carrying the men who died. Hernandez’s lawyer argued that it was Bradley who fired the shots.

Via Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! Sports, the jury asked this question on Friday, shortly after the lunch break: “If an immunized witness provides specific testimony that we believe would give enough evidence for a conviction, do we have to have corroborating evidence for that specific piece of testimony?” (The word specific, according to Wetzel, was underlined.) The judge told them that, no, corroborating evidence is not required.

The question suggests on the surface that the jury is prepared to believe Bradley’s story, which was never directly refuted by Hernandez because Hernandez didn’t testify. But it’s also possible that a juror who has a cousin who has a girlfriend who has an uncle who once considered going to law school was arguing aggressively that the jury can’t accept the testimony of Bradley without something else to confirm his version, and that without it they have no choice but to promptly acquit Hernandez.

The fact that the jury, after getting the green light to accept Bradley’s testimony without corroboration, didn’t convict Hernandez before ending their deliberations for the weekend actually suggests that latter is the case, and that the juror who has a girlfriend who has an uncle who once considered going to law school has now moved on to some other argument in favor of a not guilty verdict.

29 responses to “Jury question actually could be good for Aaron Hernandez

  1. So maybe one of the witnesses maybe said enough to maybe decide a guilty verdict,
    or maybe it was something else entirely.
    All cleared up now.

  2. “a juror who has a cousin who has a girlfriend who has an uncle who once considered going to law school”

    That cracked me up. I know the type. I once had to forman a grand jury and we had a couple amature dectives that probably watched a lot of of Law and Order making it hard to keep discussions focused on the points we were supposed to be.

  3. “a juror who has a cousin who has a girlfriend who has an uncle who once considered going to law school”

    That cracked me up. I know the type I once had to forman a grand jury and we had a couple amature dectives that probably watched a lot of of Law and Order making it hard to get to the right conclusions.

  4. It would be nice for the jury to come back with a “guilty” verdict so that the victim’s families can feel that justice was served,but this question indicates that one or more jurors have doubts.

  5. Aaron should be enjoying his permanent vacation at Souza, but if these two scumbags can’t agree who shot who, just have them be roommates back at the prison. Hernandez and his self admitted drug dealer BFF could be snuggle buddies with Bubba.

  6. thegreatgabbert says:
    Apr 7, 2017 8:00 PM
    It’s just a wild guess, but do you think Zika might be a possible cause of Hernandez’ behavior?
    ======================

    A not so wild guesser might go with the PCP

  7. “But it’s also possible that a juror who has a cousin who has a girlfriend who has an uncle who once considered going to law school…”

    You ever get tired of pretending you’re the smartest kid in the class?

  8. Spoken like a true lawyer. Truth is you have no idea what is going through the jury’s collective mind. The jury may be 11-1 to convict and have one wing nut that won’t use give in. It could also be 11-1 the other way. Its a lot easier to pick the winner in a football game than to figure out what a jury is thinking.

  9. He’s still in jail for life. Such a fool. Had everything going for him. Prayers to the victims and their families. Senseless

  10. OK this 1 life sentence , 2-3 life sentence’ s , makes no cence. So if 1 guy severs out his LIFE SENTENCE “die’s ” WHO SERVES THE OTHER 1-2 ?

  11. So sad that a used-to-be ‘attorney’ is second guessing a serious murder case from a sports site. Liberals always think they have the right perspective on everything.

  12. I think its ironic that the most compelling evidence against Hernandez is the video tape in his security system at his house. I mean, who would have thought that video tape could get a Patriot in trouble?

  13. As a former prosecutor, I’ve found that it’s best not to analyze jury questions. I recall losing a battery case after the jury asked, “was the car moving when he hit her in the face?”

  14. I guarantee he walks. I played the part of a lawyer in a school play once so I know.

    The Odin Lloyd conviction is under appeal too. After this is silliness is cleared up and the Lloyd conviction overturned, we can get on to the speculation of who will sign him. Cowboys maybe?

  15. If some wannabe lawyer thinks he/she has outsmarted the system and does not convict this piece of human debris, then they too should join him in prison.

  16. I haven’t seen any evidence that proves he did it. The prosecution in the first case said because he killed these people he certainly killed the other guy. In this case, they are saying because he killed the other guy he certainly killed these people. If he wasn’t Hispanic he’d never had been charged to begin with.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!