United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Judge Erases Aaron Hernandez’s Murder Conviction
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/sports/201 ... -hernandezs-murder-conviction/
Published: May 9, 2017
Author: Warner Todd Huston
Post Date: 2017-05-09 15:56:26 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 5008
Comments: 28
A Massachusetts judge has agreed to erase the murder conviction of former NFL player Aaron Hernandez, essentially because his suicide prevents his pursuit of justice by putting an abrupt end to his appeal. In a decision released Tuesday, Judge E. Susan Garsh said case law in Massachusetts is clear that “abatement” defendants, who are denied the ability to finish an appeal before they die, can have their convictions vacated, ABC News reported. The former New England Patriots tight end committed suicide in his cell on April 19 while serving a life sentence for the 2013 murder of football player Odin Lloyd. He died only five days after being acquitted of a second murder charge from an incident in 2012. But, Hernandez had filed an appeal of his conviction and was awaiting the process when he committed suicide. “Abatement has been practiced in state and federal courts for more than a century,” Judge Garsh said. She added that “‘an appeal is an integral part of the system’ and said the interests of justice do not permit a defendant to stand convicted upon death if appeals are not exhausted.” “Abatement has been practiced in state and federal courts for more than a century,” Judge Garsh said. She added that “‘an appeal is an integral part of the system’ and said the interests of justice do not permit a defendant to stand convicted upon death if appeals are not exhausted.” “Abatement remains the law in this Commonwealth, and this court is compelled to follow binding precedent,” Garsh concluded. Judge Garsh dismissed the claim offered by prosecutors that Hernandez knew of the abatement rules when he committed suicide. Garsh insisted that there was no way to know what Hernandez thought as he prepared to kill himself. The decision, though, could open up the New England Patriots to be liable to pay the Hernandez estate for the salary he missed during his trials and jail time after the team released him. In 2012, the Patriots extended Hernandez’s contract with $16 million in guaranteed money. But, the team released Hernandez almost immediately after he was arrested in June 2013 and didn’t pay him the $5.91 million of that guaranteed amount. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
The Patriots will have to pay. It's as simple as that. By law, he was an innocent man, and therefore, he is entitled to his money under the contract. Period.
When there is more than one shyster involved, nothing is simple.
Our legal system is pretty terrible, actually. But some cases are easy. This one is an easy case. This has been the law in Massachusetts for going on four hundred years. The prosecution wants the judge to overrule the law and produce a different result, just because - because it's a political case, because they want to "get him" even now that he's gone, because they don't like the result. Lots of reasons why the prosecutors want the judge to disregard a law that comes down from colonial times and instead just write some new law, changing precedent, legislating from the bench. The judge said "no". The appeals court judges should likewise say "no". And the Massachusetts Supreme Court should say "no". That law was written that way for a reason, and if it is to be changed, it is to be changed after the fact, on review, by the legislature, not in some ex post facto judicial activism. It's "unfair" that the Patriots have to pay the guy's kid his contract money? Perhaps a little bit. So what? The greater principle: innocent until proven guilty once appeals have been exhausted is a far more important principle than saving some billionaires some chump change. He's legally innocent. Therefore he is entitled to his contractual rights. Period.
Crime isn't supposed to pay.
I wish someone would explain that simple little factoid to all the cretins that support illegal aliens. EVERY child born to an illegal alien in this country is the product of a criminal act,so they do NOT deserve citizenship because it is illegal to profit from the commission of a crime. We don't need new laws. We need to have the existing laws enforced. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
There was no crime committed by him. He is an innocent man, by a law that has functioned for 400 years. Do you want the judge to exercise judicial activism and overturn a four century old law just to "get him"? I'm surprised to find you on the side of judicial activism. Judicial activism when you want it, otherwise, no?
We don't need new laws. We need to have the existing laws enforced. We are enforcing two existing laws when we recognize the citizenship of children born here: The Constitutional Law of birthright citizenship, and the Constitutional law that does not permit punishing a third party for the crime committed by somebody else. A child of an illegal alien is a separate and distinct human being. He is not liable for his parents' crime. That law is as old as Moses. And we do enforce it. You want to override two laws here, and enforce a principle that is not our law (and never has been) to get to a result you like. That's not enforcing existing laws - it's disregarding them.
Is he or is he not benefiting from the results of crimes committed by his parents? Do we/have we ever allowed bank robbers to keep the cash they stole after serving their sentences? This only became an issue when the Dims needed the His and Her Panic votes to remain in office. It's not about "truth,justice,and the American way!" It's about buying votes and political offices. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Irrelevant. Constitutional law is superior to and supersedes other laws. We all benefit from the crimes of our ancestors also. Doesn't mean we're personally guilty.
This claim is nonsense. It's as simple as that. Aaron Hernandez entered into a grievance settlement in 2014. Hernandez did not do well in the settlement and it governs. Also, according to Paragraph 35 (c) of Hernandez’s contract, “Player represents and warrants to the Club that . . . no circumstances exist that would prevent Player’s continuing availability to the Club for the duration of the Contract.” Article 4.9 (a) of the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement also states that “any player who . . . is unavailable to the team due to conduct by him that results in his incarceration . . . may be required to forfeit signing bonus . . . for each League Year in which a Forfeitable Breach occurs.” While Hernandez has had his criminal conviction eradicated, this does not protect his estate from civil suit. For example, consider the case of O.J. Simpson who had an actual acquittal. The estate is to be sued not only by the estate of Odin Lloyd, but by the estates of Hernandez' other alleged victims, to include Daniel de Abreu and Safiro Furtado. There are also debts payable for legal fees. Little or nothing will survive for the fiancee and daughter. Perhaps the best strategy would have been to create a trust for the daughter in a tax haven like the Caymen Islands and stuff it with as much money as possible, with the terms of the trust preventing the trustee (the offshore trust) from returning the money, even if a U.S. court found it to be a fraudulent conveyance. Hernandez would have been convicted of fraudulent conveyance, but there is not much difference between life and life plus a few years. Much of the contract money was protected by terms of the contract and the settlement agreement. The remainder of the estate will be picked over by his lawyers and victims.
I agree with you that the estate will be picked over by lawyers and alleged victims. That's inevitable. Fact is, though, that the man is innocent of murder, and while OJ could be tried civilly, Hernandez can't be. By dying, he closed the books on the ability to try him. A settlement agreement obviously will govern his affairs vis-a-vis those with whom he settled, because he can't reopen that either, being dead. I was aiming at the claim that the vacation of his conviction, returning him to the status of legal innocence, means nothing. That's not true. I was also aiming at the "we're gonna get him anyway" crowd, for their desire to see aggressive judicial activism. If we're going to do that, then what's wrong with Roe or Kelo? We are not credible people if our interpretation of the law always works out the way that we want it to.
It is certainly not a fact that he is innocent. Ask God about it.
No prize for guessing which group will get the lion's share.
It's also not a fact that people are innocent until proven guilty. In fact, most people are guilty, of something. It's a legal fact that he's innocent under the law.
Then there was no crime committed at all. Try explaining that to the deceased's kin.
You said innocent. Under the law he is not guilty. Have a good day.
Have a good day. No, under the law is he innocent. Innocent until proven guilty. He was not found "Not guilty". His guilty verdict was expunged, because he died while on appeal. In Massachussetts, this does not mean that his guilty verdict is turned into a not guilty, it means that his conviction is expunged, and he returns to the status he had before he was convicted, which is not "not guilty" under the law, it is "innocent". You also have a nice day.
Try explaining that to the deceased's kin. Are you speaking of reality, or are you speaking of legality? It seems as though you are conflating the two. Given our haphazard and unjust system of justice, that is a fatal mistake. Whether or not Hernandez actually killed a particular man, I don't know. A jury originally found him guilty. But then, juries find innocent men guilty all the time, and sometimes they are executed. Juries also find guilty men not guilty all the time. The justice system itself is a crapshoot, with outcomes largely dependent on the cleverness of the opposing lawyers and the personal prejudices of the judge and jury members. What I do know is that under the law of Massachussetts, his guilty verdict was not final. It was under appeal. He died, and the law is that under such circumstances, the verdict is expunged. Legally, he is not "not guilty". He is innocent, legally. Whether or not he was actually, in truth, the person who committed the crime for which he was accused, and for which he is legally innocent, I don't know. Only God knows that. Our legal system is not very good at getting to the truth.
No prize for guessing which group will get the lion's share. The REAL criminals only go to jails to visit their clients while wearing expensive suits. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Hernandez' death does not prevent lawsuits by claimants against his estate. There are at least three wrongful death suits. While there is no conviction of guilt, all the same testimony and evidence may be admitted and used in a civil proceeding where the complainant need only prevail by a preponderance of the evidence, i.e. the "more likely than not" standard. The chances of the Hernandez estate prevailing are not worth the legal fees to defend the cases. Of course, the lawyers who have defended Hernandez against criminal charges are first in line at the trough with claims against the estate. While Hernandez may be considered not guilty, by the time his heirs get to claim anything, the estate may be considered approximately bankrupt.
I'm speaking of three corpses, one of whom was made that way by hernandez beyond any reasonable doubt according to jury of his peers. If hernandez didin't like being guilty, he should have waited around to be acquitted.
Of course. The system is designed that way. The lawyers who defend Hernandez's estate, and the lawyers who come after it, all get paid first, obviously. The practice of law is a brutal, shitty job. Being a gladiator is grim business. It is lucrative because people who go fight things themselves lose to the trained gladiators, so people NEED the gladiators if they are to prevail, and the gladiators set the prices and the terms. The judges who decide cases are themselves senior gladiators who have put on a robe. Our legal system is brutal, in part because it's designed that way. You will not get justice unless you have a lawyer - the lawyers themselves (including judges) see to that. And you will not have a lawyer unless you pay for it - and he will insist on being paid first. Somebody is going to lose every court fight. Somebody will win, and somebody will lose. The losing side will want to cut its losses, and will be angry about the loss. The only person they can take it out on is their lawyer. That's why lawyers make sure that they are paid first, so that if they lose their angry clients will not be able to screw them out of their pay. If I were King, I'd reform the system. I'm not, and won't be, and the system will not be reformed. So, like morning halitosis, we all just have to live with it.
In your eyes. The jury said what it said. In our system, the jury's word is not final. The final word of the final appellate court is final. Hernandez' case was on appeal. He is dead. In the system in Massachusetts, that means that the appellate court nullifies the judgment against him. He dies innocent under the law. Obviously you don't like the result. That's fine. It is nevertheless the result. I don't like Nancy Pelosi. She is nevertheless the House Minority Leader. These things are so.
What is so is a jury of his peers convicted him. And no technicality or procedural finding will ever change that except after the fact. You can claim you can unring a bell, if you wish, but I don't think it can be done. Hernandez had been adjudged guilty when he died and by committing suicide, he not only voluntarily withdrew his appeal, his appeal became moot. By committing suicide, hernandez cheated the judicial system, the victim(s) and the public at large. And I don't believe that is in the best interests of justice. ymmv.
Actually, i have no animus towards the case, one way or the other. I accept that for this point in time and place and with this cast of characters, any decision is possible. I posted the article simply because i could not recall abatement ever being used this way. In fact, i could only recall it being used in civil cases and then always mean reduce, lessen, moderate, etc but never used to mean eliminate, exclude, remove, etc. I noticed the mass atty seemed to emphasize it was mass law not necessarily us code so it might be a regional use of the word. Or maybe abatement is commonly used everywhere in the us to mean eliminate and i just never knew it.
And no technicality or procedural finding will ever change that except after the fact. You can claim you can unring a bell, if you wish, but I don't think it can be done. The jury conviction is ITSELF a procedural finding, one that is inferior in precedence to the appellate judges' decision. Jury findings are part of the procedural process, a cog in it. They are neither the end of, nor the summit of, the process. It would itself be a technicality to hold them as different, apart, higher, than judicial rulings, and it would be an incorrect technicality.
It would itself be a technicality to hold them as different, apart, higher, than judicial rulings, and it would be an incorrect technicality. So essentially regardless of what anybody does, they can thwart justice and equity by the simple expedient of dying and that, by their own hand? That would seem to give one adversary the trump card in our system of justice. I'm surprised its not used more often.
That would seem to give one adversary the trump card in our system of justice. I'm surprised its not used more often. Yep, all criminals in Massachusetts have to do is KILL THEMSELVES while their cases are on appeal, and their convictions are expunged. I can think of a reason why hardly any convict would choose that option. Can't you?
#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
It's as simple as that.
#3. To: cranky (#2)
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
So what?
#5. To: cranky (#4)
Crime isn't supposed to pay.
#6. To: cranky (#4)
Crime isn't supposed to pay.
#7. To: sneakypete (#5)
they do NOT deserve citizenship because it is illegal to profit from the commission of a crime.
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
A child of an illegal alien is a separate and distinct human being. He is not liable for his parents' crime.
#9. To: sneakypete (#8)
s he or is he not benefiting from the results of crimes committed by his parents?
#10. To: Vicomte13, cranky, sneakypete (#1)
The Patriots will have to pay. It's as simple as that. By law, he was an innocent man, and therefore, he is entitled to his money under the contract. Period.
#11. To: nolu chan (#10)
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
#13. To: nolu chan (#10)
The remainder of the estate will be picked over by his lawyers and victims.
#14. To: A K A Stone (#12)
It is certainly not a fact that he is innocent.
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
There was no crime committed by him
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
#17. To: A K A Stone (#16)
You said innocent. Under the law he is not guilty.
#18. To: cranky (#15)
Then there was no crime committed at all.
#19. To: cranky (#13)
The remainder of the estate will be picked over by his lawyers and victims.
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
Fact is, though, that the man is innocent of murder, and while OJ could be tried civilly, Hernandez can't be. By dying, he closed the books on the ability to try him.
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
Are you speaking of reality, or are you speaking of legality?
#22. To: nolu chan (#20)
Of course, the lawyers who have defended Hernandez against criminal charges are first in line at the trough with claims against the estate.
#23. To: cranky (#21)
If hernandez didin't like being guilty, he should have waited around to be acquitted.
#24. To: Vicomte13 (#23)
These things are so.
#25. To: Vicomte13 (#23)
Obviously you don't like the result.
#26. To: cranky (#24)
What is so is a jury of his peers convicted him.
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
The jury conviction is ITSELF a procedural finding, one that is inferior in precedence to the appellate judges' decision. Jury findings are part of the procedural process, a cog in it. They are neither the end of, nor the summit of, the process.
#28. To: cranky (#27)
(Edited)
So essentially regardless of what anybody does, they can thwart justice and equity by the simple expedient of dying and that, by their own hand?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]