What are your thoughts on the deliberations taking so long. We're on what, 5 days now? Taking this long I think the jury is full on hung.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There are three independent acts or mens rea to garnger first degree in Mass-Originally posted by NDallasRuss:
For me personally, it seems that they connected enough of the dots that I don't have reasonable doubt that he did it. With his defense attorneys admitting he was there during their closing, I'd feel really comfortable about second degree murder. Not first degree though - I don't think they proved it was premeditated.
No, to convict him of murder you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the act with the appropriate mens rea. It is not his burden to prove he did not pull the trigger, it is the prosecutions burden...Originally posted by QuaZ2002:
They admitted he was at the scene!!! The circumstantial evidence doesn't even matter now that they're conceding that fact. To find him not guilt you need to believe he was somehow at the scene of the crime and had no knowledge what was going to happen. But the defense at no point gave any evidence to showing how this is plausible. He wasn't some meek follower who was scared of his drug addict buddies. Anyone who doesn't convict on this is a damn fool.
So are you saying that 3 guys can get together and kill someone and as long as noone talks and you get rid of the weapon (not sure that even matters), you can get away with murder??Originally posted by Fijimn:
No, to convict him of murder you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the act with the appropriate mens rea. It is not his burden to prove he did not pull the trigger, it is the prosecutions burden...Originally posted by QuaZ2002:
They admitted he was at the scene!!! The circumstantial evidence doesn't even matter now that they're conceding that fact. To find him not guilt you need to believe he was somehow at the scene of the crime and had no knowledge what was going to happen. But the defense at no point gave any evidence to showing how this is plausible. He wasn't some meek follower who was scared of his drug addict buddies. Anyone who doesn't convict on this is a damn fool.
Yes and the prosecution has met it. For you to believe he didn't murder this guy, or at least be in on it, you have to make some very illogical jumps that haven't been supported by any evidence. The defense could have painted the other two guys as the leaders of the group, as homicidal maniacs that AH was afraid of. They did nothing of the sort, didn't present a single piece of evidence while the prosecution showed a video of AH walking around the house minutes later with a gun and AH had his fiance take them hundreds of dollars a few days later as well. Those aren't the actions of someone who was caught off guard by what happened or too afraid to go to the police. It's inexplicable the might get off but I can't fathom someone saying he's not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at this point.Originally posted by Fijimn:
No, to convict him of murder you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the act with the appropriate mens rea. It is not his burden to prove he did not pull the trigger, it is the prosecutions burden...Originally posted by QuaZ2002:
They admitted he was at the scene!!! The circumstantial evidence doesn't even matter now that they're conceding that fact. To find him not guilt you need to believe he was somehow at the scene of the crime and had no knowledge what was going to happen. But the defense at no point gave any evidence to showing how this is plausible. He wasn't some meek follower who was scared of his drug addict buddies. Anyone who doesn't convict on this is a damn fool.
Yes; that is possible -- provided that there is no other evidence that could implicate the shooter.So are you saying that 3 guys can get together and kill someone and as long as noone talks and you get rid of the weapon (not sure that even matters), you can get away with murder??
"at least be in on it" is not the standard to convict for murder. However, a lot of jurors will conflate that concept, i.e.,Yes and the prosecution has met it. For you to believe he didn't murder this guy, or at least be in on it, you have to make some very illogical jumps that haven't been supported by any evidence. The defense could have painted the other two guys as the leaders of the group, as homicidal maniacs that AH was afraid of. They did nothing of the sort, didn't present a single piece of evidence while the prosecution showed a video of AH walking around the house minutes later with a gun and AH had his fiance take them hundreds of dollars a few days later as well. Those aren't the actions of someone who was caught off guard by what happened or too afraid to go to the police. It's inexplicable the might get off but I can't fathom someone saying he's not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at this point.
I think that they are going to try the car shooting with two dead next. The passenger in Hernandez's car is going to testify that Hernandez unloaded his clip into the other vehicle.Originally posted by DFSNOLE:
I would think that a hung jury would be a terrible result for Hernandez given his attorney pointed the finger directly at his cohorts. Think they would be willing to provide the smoking gun now?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
This is correct based on this case and how our law works in most states. And this is how it should work. The reason being is if you end up accidentally at the scene of a crime you didn't know was going to happen then you shouldn't be convicted. If he was the only person at the scene of the crime or they had both other dudes testify he pulled the trigger... different story.Originally posted by Fijimn:
"at least be in on it" is not the standard to convict for murder. However, a lot of jurors will conflate that concept, i.e.,Yes and the prosecution has met it. For you to believe he didn't murder this guy, or at least be in on it, you have to make some very illogical jumps that haven't been supported by any evidence. The defense could have painted the other two guys as the leaders of the group, as homicidal maniacs that AH was afraid of. They did nothing of the sort, didn't present a single piece of evidence while the prosecution showed a video of AH walking around the house minutes later with a gun and AH had his fiance take them hundreds of dollars a few days later as well. Those aren't the actions of someone who was caught off guard by what happened or too afraid to go to the police. It's inexplicable the might get off but I can't fathom someone saying he's not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at this point.
"well, he was there and he is here at trial, so he must have done something." with the necessary evidentiary standard.
I believe that they presented evidence that the other actors were habitual PCP users and a doctor testified regarding the effects of PCP use, causing paranoia. The state may be successful in proving that the gun he was walking around with was the same Glock used in the murder...but the expert did make an admission that he could not be certain.
In the end, the state may have met its burden. However, to state that only an idiot would not convict Hernandez is simply not accurate based on circumstantial evidence and the burden that must be met by the state.
Some states have criminal enterprise statutes; thus, they can convict if you were a part of the group. It is a deviation from traditional requirements of a mens rea and actus rea.Originally posted by LT4PLY:
This is correct based on this case and how our law works in most states. And this is how it should work. The reason being is if you end up accidentally at the scene of a crime you didn't know was going to happen then you shouldn't be convicted. If he was the only person at the scene of the crime or they had both other dudes testify he pulled the trigger... different story.Originally posted by Fijimn:
"at least be in on it" is not the standard to convict for murder. However, a lot of jurors will conflate that concept, i.e.,Yes and the prosecution has met it. For you to believe he didn't murder this guy, or at least be in on it, you have to make some very illogical jumps that haven't been supported by any evidence. The defense could have painted the other two guys as the leaders of the group, as homicidal maniacs that AH was afraid of. They did nothing of the sort, didn't present a single piece of evidence while the prosecution showed a video of AH walking around the house minutes later with a gun and AH had his fiance take them hundreds of dollars a few days later as well. Those aren't the actions of someone who was caught off guard by what happened or too afraid to go to the police. It's inexplicable the might get off but I can't fathom someone saying he's not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at this point.
"well, he was there and he is here at trial, so he must have done something." with the necessary evidentiary standard.
I believe that they presented evidence that the other actors were habitual PCP users and a doctor testified regarding the effects of PCP use, causing paranoia. The state may be successful in proving that the gun he was walking around with was the same Glock used in the murder...but the expert did make an admission that he could not be certain.
In the end, the state may have met its burden. However, to state that only an idiot would not convict Hernandez is simply not accurate based on circumstantial evidence and the burden that must be met by the state.
This is also exactly why identical twins could, up until recently, pretty much get away with anything if they planned it properly.
I just read they are using a Mass. common law in this case though. In short, they can charge all of them with murder and convict if they can prove he was part of the deal. In this case, with that obscure state law, he should be found guilty. I doubt he would in any other state though.
or....Originally posted by Random_John:
Oh, I agree. It's like the Casey Anthony case. The evidence to convict just isn't there.
Not a SINGLE thread on gator boards. Nada!Originally posted by atlseminole:
A proud day indeed for Florida Gator football history. They stick together in all kinds of weather, right?
Why would there be? Not like Hernandez was involved in a BB gun fight or yelled FHRITP in public or anything like that.Originally posted by goldmom:
Not a SINGLE thread on gator boards. Nada!Originally posted by atlseminole:
A proud day indeed for Florida Gator football history. They stick together in all kinds of weather, right?