Aaron Hernandez trial - closing arguments, getting desperate

[Lemon Thrower]

Aarron Hernandez' lawyers are getting desperate. In closing arguments, they admit he was at the scene of the crime and witnessed the murder. that is 90% of what the prosecution has to prove to lock him up for life (no death penalty in mass.)



Hernandez was there

 

[ReliableOstrich]

So they say he saw it, but won't say who pulled the trigger?
Can't they just lock him up for obstruction until he names a name - and inevitably who ever he snitches on will snitch back on him (or have both the other guys already dimed aaron out?)

Haven't paid a ton of attention as I just assumed this was a no brainer for the jury.

 

[DefNotPanHandler2007]

Yea but 90% of what they have to prove is a defense win if they can't prove that last 1%.

 

[QuaZ2002]

Pretty weird how this all is revealed on the final day. So basically the defense is that he's a scared "follower" who was too afraid to stop his drug addict buddies? Doesn't quite add up. I can't imagine how he gets off on this, but juries are crazy.

 

[NoleFan2U]

So he used to hang with drug addicts? Or he use to hang with them?

 

[NoleandDawg]

Interesting defense tactic. They spent the whole case trying to cast doubt on the fact that he was there and then just admit he was there. Maybe they are hoping for a second degree conviction.

 

[AllNoles]

Did AH testify? If not how did the defense argue it, by arguing evidence it challenged the whole trial?

Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[SWFNole]

Originally posted by NoleFan2U:
So he used to hang with drug addicts? Or he use to hang with them?

Looks like he used to use them.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Lemon Thrower]

Originally posted by NoleandDawg:
Interesting defense tactic. They spent the whole case trying to cast doubt on the fact that he was there and then just admit he was there.

this. they must feel it went badly for them, and are trying to buy some credibility. desperation.

 

[QuaZ2002]

Originally posted by Lemon Thrower:

Originally posted by NoleandDawg:
Interesting defense tactic. They spent the whole case trying to cast doubt on the fact that he was there and then just admit he was there.

this.  they must feel it went badly for them, and are trying to buy some credibility.  desperation.

Yeah I found it weird. In closing they said that the investigation was incomplete, biased, and inept. Umm, but they got all three of the guys who were at the murder scene so the investigation was pretty good actually.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[tommynole3476]

Based on what I've seen, it seems like the only thing that the defense hasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt is who actually fired the gun. They have sufficiently proven that the gun was his, that he was the leader of this group, that he was there, just not that he actually fired the shots.

But I'm not sure if they actually have to prove that to get a conviction, if the jury believes that all three of these men are responsible for the murder, regardless of who physically pulled the trigger, then they're all guilty of the same murder charge (I realize that the other two are being tried separate from AH).

That is AH's only hope, IMO, that the jury believes that he was there, but had no intention of being involved in his murder, and didn't know what to do afterwards because he was scared of his two friends possibly killing him. But his defense hasn't really laid the groundwork for that, so I'm not sure how they'll come to that conclusion.

 

[SoCarolinaNole]

It'll probably work. I mean, it's not like he has a history of violent behavi...oh wait...
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[OrlandNole]

Originally posted by tommynole3476:
Based on what I've seen, it seems like the only thing that the defense hasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt is who actually fired the gun. They have sufficiently proven that the gun was his, that he was the leader of this group, that he was there, just not that he actually fired the shots.

But I'm not sure if they actually have to prove that to get a conviction, if the jury believes that all three of these men are responsible for the murder, regardless of who physically pulled the trigger, then they're all guilty of the same murder charge (I realize that the other two are being tried separate from AH).

That is AH's only hope, IMO, that the jury believes that he was there, but had no intention of being involved in his murder, and didn't know what to do afterwards because he was scared of his two friends possibly killing him. But his defense hasn't really laid the groundwork for that, so I'm not sure how they'll come to that conclusion.

If that isn't basis enough for conviction, then all you need to need to commit murder is a group of three or more people with an agreement to not reveal the trigger man.

 

[Lemon Thrower]

prosecution can convict if they prove a joint enterprise - they all shared the same plan - even if hernandez did not pull the trigger.

there is some logic to the defense. they realize they lose credibility saying hernandez wasn't there. so they say he was there, but he just wasn't part of the plan. that's a stretch, but they are basically telling the jury to focus on the defense' strongest argument.

the significance of all of this is this: if you have been reading the trial recaps, the media has suggested it hasn't been going well for the prosecution. that's the media's opinion. but the defense came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved he was there. so the defense's own actions indicate that the prosecution has done a good job so far.

Hernandez is basically resorting to Hail Mary's right now.

 

[dmm5157]

Originally posted by Lemon Thrower:
prosecution can convict if they prove a joint enterprise - they all shared the same plan - even if hernandez did not pull the trigger.

there is some logic to the defense. they realize they lose credibility saying hernandez wasn't there. so they say he was there, but he just wasn't part of the plan. that's a stretch, but they are basically telling the jury to focus on the defense' strongest argument.

the significance of all of this is this: if you have been reading the trial recaps, the media has suggested it hasn't been going well for the prosecution. that's the media's opinion. but the defense came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved he was there. so the defense's own actions indicate that the prosecution has done a good job so far.

Hernandez is basically resorting to Hail Mary's right now.

Somewhat my frame of thought on this as well. I'm just a Google Lawyer, but I do enjoy reading up on cases like this (the Robert Durst documentary/show has intensified that).

I wouldn't be on a conviction right now, those defense lawyers have ways of snake charming a jury into disregarding what they know and what they've actually heard.

 

[Semiologist]

This tactic seems counterintuitive to the obfuscation of the facts that most defense attorneys employ.

 

[tommynole3476]

Originally posted by Lemon Thrower:
prosecution can convict if they prove a joint enterprise - they all shared the same plan - even if hernandez did not pull the trigger.

there is some logic to the defense. they realize they lose credibility saying hernandez wasn't there. so they say he was there, but he just wasn't part of the plan. that's a stretch, but they are basically telling the jury to focus on the defense' strongest argument.

the significance of all of this is this: if you have been reading the trial recaps, the media has suggested it hasn't been going well for the prosecution. that's the media's opinion. but the defense came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved he was there. so the defense's own actions indicate that the prosecution has done a good job so far.

Hernandez is basically resorting to Hail Mary's right now.

Dangit, forgot to include this pun in my previous post, but that was what I was trying to elude to as well.

Does the fact that none of the three men being willing to rat on the others help the prosecution's case? I mean, if one of you didn't know what was going to happen, or wasn't in on it, you'd be willing to tell that to the jury, no?

Either way, he's still got a double murder trial after this one too, so his days in court and/or prison aren't over if he somehow manages to be found not guilty on this one.

 

[rjstf]

The problem for the prosecution is that their case is all circumstantial, which may be difficult for the juries to convict on. Is there a lesser charge he could be convicted on based on his being among the group who committed the murder?

 

[Lemon Thrower]

yes, 2nd degree murder - 15 years instead of life.

jury is still out.

 

[noleville]

As you're laughing at how stupid a defense that is, to admit he was there and saw it but didn't do it, let me just say 2 words... "Casey Anthony'

Yep, we all laughed at her stupid lawyer and that completely unbelievable defense of "it was an accident so that's why I made up a fictional abduction, stuffed her in the trunk like garbage for days, dumped her in a swamp then went to the beach and partied. Because I was afraid of my dad".....As we laughed..."NOT GUILTY"!!

 

[West Duval Nole]

Originally posted by noleville:
As you're laughing at how stupid a defense that is, to admit he was there and saw it but didn't do it, let me just say 2 words... "
Casey Anthony'



Yep, we all laughed at her stupid lawyer and that completely unbelievable defense of "it was an accident so that's why I made up a fictional abduction, stuffed her in the trunk like garbage for days, dumped her in a swamp then went to the beach and partied. Because I was afraid of my dad".....As we laughed..."NOT GUILTY"!!

Her lawyer was an FSU law school grad I believe.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Seminiferous]

Hernandez should be drawn and quartered, slowly, during prime time on national television.

 

[noleville]

Originally posted by West Duval Nole:

Originally posted by noleville:
As you're laughing at how stupid a defense that is, to admit he was there and saw it but didn't do it, let me just say 2 words... "
Casey Anthony'



Yep, we all laughed at her stupid lawyer and that completely unbelievable defense of "it was an accident so that's why I made up a fictional abduction, stuffed her in the trunk like garbage for days, dumped her in a swamp then went to the beach and partied. Because I was afraid of my dad".....As we laughed..."NOT GUILTY"!!

Her lawyer was an FSU law school grad I believe.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

He was, and remember how most on these boards were embarrassed at the fool he was making of himself using that stragidy that was obviously going to fail?? I remember experts saying that his defense boarders on complete incompetence, yet...
Remember Robert Blake's trial? NO WAY could he win that one. He's going through a bitter divorce and custody battle, he takes her to a restaurant where she's killed in his car by his gun that he brought. He claims he accidentally left it in the restaurant where some stranger found it and killed her for apparently no reason.. Most laughed at that defense until the verdict....NOT GUILTY!!
I won't believe this jury finds him guilty until I hear the actual words..

 

[tommynole3476]

I don't really see how the CA trial can be compared to the AH trial. People want to believe CA was guilty, but the fact is, her story was a plausible and able to cast reasonable doubt against the charges of first degree murder. Hers is a classic case of overcharging. Unless you're just looking for famous cases where people were found not guilty.

Aaron Hernandez has no plausible story to explain why he called his two buddies in that night, was seen on video entering the crime scene, why his DNA was found on bullet casings, why he was seen on video holding the gun, nor does he have a plausible story to explain away the motive witnesses have testified to.

Honestly, I think the defense should have tried to say 'Aaron and a few buddies were out at this construction site, getting high, and shooting guns, there was an accident, and Odin was shot and killed, and they panicked and left.'

I seriously think that would have been a more plausible and possibly reasonable doubt casting story than 'He was there, he saw it, but he really wasn't involved, and didn't know what to do afterwards.'

Also, DNA and physical evidence place him at the crime scene, so the case isn't 'purely' circumstantial. I'd be willing to bet in most murder trials that's one of the hardest things to prove, whether the accused was even at the scene of the crime when it was being committed.

 

[Bud Fox]

Deliberating 3 days so far. That means there are holdouts on that jury that don't want to convict, at least on the murder 1 charge.

Going to be interesting to see if he gets off, then the other 2 guys both swear Aaron pulled the trigger... Double jeopardy!!

 

[Lemon Thrower]

Originally posted by Bud Fox:
Deliberating 3 days so far. That means there are holdouts on that jury that don't want to convict, at least on the murder 1 charge.

Going to be interesting to see if he gets off, then the other 2 guys both swear Aaron pulled the trigger... Double jeopardy!!

this is not surprising with a circumstantial case and murder 1 charged. verdicts in ct have to be unanimous. jury is going to be thorough.

 

[crooked_rain]

What about the second murder case involving the 2 guys who left da club? Better or worse chance of conviction for that one?

 

[Fijimn]

Originally posted by crooked_rain:
What about the second murder case involving the 2 guys who left da club? Better or worse chance of conviction for that one?

I read that they have a witness that is going to testify that he unloaded a clip into that car. I believe it is the same guy he shot in Florida that refused to testify in that case (Not that the SA pressed it).

I was a bit flabbergasted at changing your theory at closing argument. That is something that you present in opening. sets your theory of the case. For the jurors, it's a violation of the trust that is built up in a lengthy trial like this. It is such a strange move, you think they are trying to lay a case of ineffective counsel on appeal

 

[DFSNOLE]

Heard speculation of a hung jury. I would think that would be the last thing the defense would want given the closing where they pointed fingers. I'm sure they would be more than willing to testify now.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Rhino_nole]

Originally posted by West Duval Nole:

Originally posted by noleville:
As you're laughing at how stupid a defense that is, to admit he was there and saw it but didn't do it, let me just say 2 words... "
Casey Anthony'



Yep, we all laughed at her stupid lawyer and that completely unbelievable defense of "it was an accident so that's why I made up a fictional abduction, stuffed her in the trunk like garbage for days, dumped her in a swamp then went to the beach and partied. Because I was afraid of my dad".....As we laughed..."NOT GUILTY"!!

Her lawyer was an FSU law school grad I believe.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[noleville]

"I don't really see how the CA trial can be compared to the AH trial. People want to believe CA was guilty, but the fact is, her story was a plausible and able to cast reasonable doubt against the charges of first degree murder. Hers is a classic case of overcharging. Unless you're just looking for famous cases where people were found not guilty".



No it wasn't plausible, not even semi. The body was in such bad shape that they couldn't determine how she died, so all of her serches of how to kill her were ignored.There are many 1st degree convictions that don't even have a body, it's was her actions after that the jury ignored..

 

[runkpanole]

Originally posted by Rhino_nole:

Originally posted by West Duval Nole:

Originally posted by noleville:
As you're laughing at how stupid a defense that is, to admit he was there and saw it but didn't do it, let me just say 2 words... "
Casey Anthony'



Yep, we all laughed at her stupid lawyer and that completely unbelievable defense of "it was an accident so that's why I made up a fictional abduction, stuffed her in the trunk like garbage for days, dumped her in a swamp then went to the beach and partied. Because I was afraid of my dad".....As we laughed..."NOT GUILTY"!!

Her lawyer was an FSU law school grad I believe.


Posted from Rivals Mobile

jpablot loves you for posting this.