well you've been right every step of the way so i trust you

They talked about this on espn and said that there is some law called "joint venture" i think. The example he laid out was that if a couple of people plan to rob a bank and one of them kills someone, that all can be found guilty of the murder. In that sense i dont think they have to prove that Hernandez actually pulled the trigger, just that he was a part of the plan.

Now im just repeating something I heard a couple hours ago so could be mis-remembering. If someone with knowledge wants to correct what i said, that would be appreciated.

I remember reading that in 2009, Massachusetts had a 34% conviction rate for felony trials.

I think people get off on these things all the time regardless of how the case looks from an evidence stand point. Evidence can be deemed inadmissible later, etc etc...

Hope AH calls up Casey Anthony's Lawyer, Jose Baez

Your probably right that he could be found guilty of murder. However, he may have grounds to appeal if convicted under a joint venture verdict. But the prosecution is going for 1st degree and that maybe difficult to prove without that murder weapon. They have a shell case but no gun to match it to. I bet that gun that Hernandez returned with is no where to be found.

Every single forum thread on every single trial ever people inevitably start making up ludicrous scenarios and alternate realities that somehow make conviction impossible.

It's beyond a REASONABLE doubt. I don't see how any reasonable person can look at the evidence they supposedly have at this juncture and not 100% conclude this dude was involve in the murder, either as the shooter or as a major accessory. Shell casings in his rental car? Him smashing his secuirty system immediately after the murder? Hiring a cleaning crew? What planet are people on where this guy is innocent.

If he just keeps silent, that's very daming. If he wasn't the trigger man he should immediately confess to what he did to, because clearly he was involved. If he tries to claim he had nothing to do with it, which is an out and out lie based on the facts, then he's clearly hiding something horrible.

I don't see any way he walks given that basically beyond ANY doubt we know:

A small window where he was killed

That Hernandez was with him during that window of time

That Hernandez was seen on camera footage before and after at his house, leaving a window of time just big enough for them to drive to crime scene, shoot victim, and drive back

That Hernandez immediately started covering his tracks as soon as the murder happened

But could AH trust him?

He has Ray Lewis's lawyer that represented him in the murder trial. He is in good hands.

They are not charging him with accessory to murder so they cannot convict him on that. He was involved there is no question on that imo. I just think that there is a possibility that he does not get convicted on murder 1. If the lawyer can beat that charge he can possibly appeal if convicted on the other and get the charges lowered on some of the other charges.

What I don't get is why the DA did not throw in some more charges like obstruction of justice. I know in some areas he would have had like 15 different charges against him.

Has there ever been a trial pool where we all take squares etc?

Yes I know someone died, but I can't change that now. I can however find a way to make fun of the murdered a bit via a harmless pool.

Lawyers being what they are, a jury might not get the chance.

Wonder what his search history looks like...

that's why I don't get jury people. I think people get bogged down by lawyers confusing the crap out of everyone. Look at the OJ case. so many arguments about OJ being framed by the cops and the race card in LA etc etc.

If I'm on this jury im going guilty for so many reasons. I mean, there is a freaken shell casing in the car. Even if he didn't pull the trigger he was damn involved and an accessory to murder at the minimum. He was either the trigger man or as involved as the trigger man. Hell, all three guys should get Murder 1.

You can't vote accessory to murder on the jury if that is not one of the charges.

Like what? date of conviction...?

Since the evidence says he was involved, which he clearly was, he should cop a plea.

You have to ask yourself as a reasonable person, he's clearly invovled, why is he denying he wasn't? We don't know what his defense will be, but if he's going to go into court and try to claim he's 100% innocent of everything to fight the murder 1 charge, I'm convicting him solely on the evidence and the fact he's flat out lying about being involved when he clearly was.

If the evidence is as strong as it looks you gotta figure his lawyers will definitely try to convince him to cop a plea to some lesser charges if the prosecution is willing to deal.

I am willing to put money on it that there is no way he is testifying. Did he lie about being involved? I thought he was not talking to police. If he can get a plea that is minor that does not involve murder that would be a win. But I don't know if the DA will even want that. This is a big case and going for some low charge might not be good for the DA because of politics. DA got an image to protect.

you'd make an excellent juror. already voting guilty before hearing any of the prosecution or defense's case.
forming your entire opinion based on what you've heard 2nd hand from the media.

yup excellent juror. hopefully the state of mass can find other potential jurors as well qualified and unbiased as yourself.

edit: i obv think he's guilty too, but i'd hopefully be a lil more open-minded if i had to literally decide the rest of his life not just make sarcastic quips on twitter.

Don't wanna lawtard things too much further, but if you read that case, it never says "The privilege applies even if the spouse was not married at the time of the events that are the subject of the criminal trial." It's talking about prior testimony that occurred prior to the marriage that can be used because the spouse is now "unavailable."

The notes to the Mass statute are very clear:

Probably left out obstruction etc. so that on the off chance he gets off they can re-try him on conspiracy + obstruction and still put his ass in jail.

OBV it's super out there but

Is it not possible that someone attempted to car jack Hernandez?

After picking up some cigarettes to roll a blunt with they go behind a warehouse to smoke. While doing so someone catches them slipping, pulls out a gun and screams "Get out of the car!" Hernandez pulls out a gun (the gun we see on tape) and opens fire on the suspect (shell casings). The suspect shoots back hitting the victim who was attempting to flee on foot. Hernandez steps on it leaving his friend behind who is then shot to death by the random black guy.

Or possible drug deal gone bad

I could see a few formats. One could be:

guilty + length of trial in days
innocent + length of trial in days

or

guitly + sentence in years + length of trial in days

I dunno, I've never done it before. Sure we could figure it out.

mjw, you and riverman are confusing spousal disqualification and privilege. in mass, the privilege applies even if the act happened before the marriage.

The only way it is a non guilty verdict is if they get a bunch of idiots on the jury with an IQ of less than 80 (to match Hernandez) and they are blind Patriots homers or the defense can come up with a rhyme similar to "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" that the ****** juy goes along with.

I don't know if this will work. I have read some cases where a prosecutor tried this and the judge said all or nothing. Guess it depends on the judge.