Jury is deliberating in the Aaron Hernandez trial

[SCFinfan]

Guilty... ouch.

Guy may not be standup, but man... probable life sentence at 25. I don't know that I could take it. Ugh. Makes me sick to even think about it.

The 1st degree murder statute reads as follows in Massachusetts, as best as I could find:

Murder committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, or with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or in the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable with death or imprisonment for life, is murder in the first degree. Murder which does not appear to be in the first degree is murder in the second degree. Petit treason shall be prosecuted and punished as murder. The degree of murder shall be found by the jury.

I don't know that that was proven... no one knows who pulled the trigger. My understanding is that you don't have to know for sure, but... we don't know who did it, and we never will, and man... just not very satisfied by this verdict.

The worst feeling in the world is the go all out on a trial (as this attorney did) and come up with nothing.

[MikeO]

^^^The attorney's defense for Hernandez was that he was at the scene of the crime, he just didn't commit the crime. Not exactly the best  defense in my book. Combine that with his Fiancee's testimony and and you don't need to be Scooby Doo to solve this mystery. Hernandez is guilty.

[Phishfan]

or with extreme atrocity or cruelty,

I just saw the jury on ESPN and this is where they came up with guilty of first degree. They said there were varying reasons why they thought this but all agreed it was extreme or cruel.

[SCFinfan]

^^^The attorney's defense for Hernandez was that he was at the scene of the crime, he just didn't commit the crime. Not exactly the best  defense in my book. Combine that with his Fiancee's testimony and and you don't need to be Scooby Doo to solve this mystery. Hernandez is guilty.

Sometimes the only defense is not the best defense. The prosecution had proven he was there beyond a reasonable doubt, but not that his hand was on the trigger. Wrong place, wrong time. And no motive. Hey man, makes sense to me.

The fiancee's testimony was damaging, but I don't know too much about her credibility.

I just saw the jury on ESPN and this is where they came up with guilty of first degree. They said there were varying reasons why they thought this but all agreed it was extreme or cruel.

I guess shooting someone is extremely ferocious or cruel. But who shot the guy? It just kills me. No one knows. That's reasonable doubt.

[MikeO]

Sometimes the only defense is not the best defense.

And sometimes you are just guilty!

[Phishfan]

But who shot the guy? It just kills me. No one knows. That's reasonable doubt.

I may be wrong and it may vary by state, you would know best. You really don't need to prove who pulled the trigger to fight reasonable doubt. You don't even have to prove he was there. Charles Manson is a perfect example if you ask me. The guy wasn't even present.

[Rich]

They had video of Hernandez walking into his house with a Glock 45 in his hand right after the murder took place. The victim was shot with a Glock 45.

[SCFinfan]

And sometimes you are just guilty!

No sir, absolutely not. You are proven[/i] guilty. The testimony in this case puts him there that night, but again, THAT'S IT.

I may be wrong and it may vary by state, you would know best. You really don't need to prove who pulled the trigger to fight reasonable doubt. You don't even have to prove he was there. Charles Manson is a perfect example if you ask me. The guy wasn't even present.

You're right, it depends.

Murder generally breaks down like this.

Murder 1: with intent to kill, premeditation or other aggravating factors
Murder 2: murder with intent to kill or severely harm, but with no premeditation/aggravating factors
Murder 3: "homicide by child abuse" in certain situations and "reckless/depraved heart" murder, which means you were so utterly careless with someone else's life, but had no intent to kill them.
Murder 4: aka "felony murder" you did not murder anyone, but a murder occurred and you participated in it in some non-homicidal way (very controversial - you could loan someone a car knowing they may use it to get away from a murder and you could still be charged with this)
Voluntary Manslaughter: Murder provoked by the eventual victim, but provocation doesn't rise to the level of triggering self defense
Involuntary Manslaughter: accidentally killing someone in a negligent way, but not a reckless way (reckless would be like pointing your loaded gun at someone while you clean the trigger of said gun, negligent would be something more like failing to assure that they were buckled in during a traffic incident or something similar thereto).

I've read that there may be Massachusetts law (cases) that say you don't have to prove he pulled the trigger, that's fine. They didn't. But the problem would be this: what if someone else pulled that trigger?

I can certainly see a charge of felony murder in this circumstance, and he would almost certainly be guilty of that: the defense admitted as much, as far as i can see. But murder first? Again, what if someone else pulled that trigger? it just... it doesn't seem to fit.

Charles Manson was convicted of murder under a california law similar to one we have here. "Hand of one is the hand of all" meaning, in the event that there was a conspiracy to murder someone, and one of the conspirators does it, then, all of the individuals can be found guilty of the murder. I don't think that exists in Mass, but I have no idea.

[SCFinfan]

They had video of Hernandez walking into his house with a Glock 45 in his hand right after the murder took place. The victim was shot with a Glock 45.

Unknown if he fired it. Did the video show him holding a glock? Was it identified in trial? I thought the video was fairly blurry.

Again, that's the problem - who shot that gun?

[Rich]

Unknown if he fired it. Did the video show him holding a glock? Was it identified in trial? I thought the video was fairly blurry.

Again, that's the problem - who shot that gun?

The manufacturer identified the gun in the video as a Glock .45. He was admittedly at the scene of the crime. When he got home, he had his fiancee dispose of the gun. I think that's pretty darn incriminating.

[SCFinfan]

The manufacturer identified the gun in the video as a Glock .45. He was admittedly at the scene of the crime. When he got home, he had his fiancee dispose of the gun. I think that's pretty darn incriminating.

Didn't know the manufacturer identified it. My understanding was that the fiancee disposed of a box which she didn't know the contents of. Seems incriminating, but, he could've just been cleaning up for his friends' murders.

Again, that's the central nerve for me. We don't know who pulled the trigger and we also know that there's really not a motive for hernandez to do so.

Remember, reasonable doubt is this:

"that which would cause a reasonable man to pause before acting."

It's not that you wouldn't act, but that you would pause before acting.

Anyway, so what does that boil down to? Well, imagine I appear in front of you with a cup full of M&Ms. There's at least 100 M&Ms in the cup. I say I'll give you 5000$ to chew and swallow an M&M, but that one of them is poisoned with cyanide, and if you eat it, you will surely die.

Do you pause before taking one and eating it?

If you do, you have reasonable doubt regarding the M&Ms, and you would have it here too. I just think you definitely have reasonable doubt here.

[Rich]

Didn't know the manufacturer identified it. My understanding was that the fiancee disposed of a box which she didn't know the contents of. Seems incriminating, but, he could've just been cleaning up for his friends' murders.

Again, that's the central nerve for me. We don't know who pulled the trigger and we also know that there's really not a motive for hernandez to do so.

Remember, reasonable doubt is this:

"that which would cause a reasonable man to pause before acting."

It's not that you wouldn't act, but that you would pause before acting.

Anyway, so what does that boil down to? Well, imagine I appear in front of you with a cup full of M&Ms. There's at least 100 M&Ms in the cup. I say I'll give you 5000$ to chew and swallow an M&M, but that one of them is poisoned with cyanide, and if you eat it, you will surely die.

Do you pause before taking one and eating it?

If you do, you have reasonable doubt regarding the M&Ms, and you would have it here too. I just think you definitely have reasonable doubt here.

I understand reasonable doubt and our legal system just fine. I've been on juries before and understand the instructions given to the jury by a judge.

The fact is the prosecution called 132 witnesses, the defense called 3. The defense admitted that Hernandez was at the scene of the crime and tried to portray him as a young man who was just going along for the ride. If that is the best they could do, then there must be a reason why.

And why was he the one holding the gun when they got back to the house if someone else pulled the trigger? If you own a gun, do you let someone borrow to shoot someone else? That's pretty stupid.

And then the gun magically disappears?

Given all of the information I have received about this case, I wouldn't have paused. And I actually liked Hernandez as a player before all this happened.

These jurors spent 8 weeks listening to testimony and 1 week deliberating on a verdict. They were provided with all of the information and counter information to connect the dots and make a decision. More information and context than either you or I have. If they took one week to consider this, it doesn't seem to me like they took it lightly.

[MikeO]

No sir, absolutely not. You are proven[/i] guilty. The testimony in this case puts him there that night, but again, THAT'S IT.
 

He did it, he's guilty. He had a fair trial.The evidence was overwhelming that he did it. The jury took their time and looked at all of the evidence.  He got convicted and was found guilty.

You are trying to spin this. Bottom line, he did the crime. He got caught. And now he will spend the rest of his life in jail. Nuff said. Not gonna feel sorry for a guy who killed multiple human beings.

[Phishfan]

we also know that there's really not a motive for hernandez to do so.

While it isn't evidence that could be used in court, I've heard two possible motives for him to kill Oden so we really don't know there isn't a motive.

[Dave Gray]

^ What were the motives you heard?